1 Executive Summary

1.1 Purpose and Context

This comprehensive review examines how ecosystem information is currently used across all eight U.S. Fishery Management Councils to support the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) in enhancing its ecosystem-based fisheries management approaches. The work addresses a key priority of the East Coast Coordination Group: identifying ecosystem information that can improve management responsiveness and resilience under changing ocean conditions.

1.2 Key Findings

1.2.1 Current State of Ecosystem Reporting

All eight Councils have ecosystem data products, though with varying levels of development and update frequency:

  • Annual Reporting: North Pacific (3 regional reports), Pacific, New England, and Mid-Atlantic Councils receive annual Ecosystem Status Reports (ESRs)
  • Intermittent Reporting: Gulf, South Atlantic, Western Pacific, and Caribbean have less frequent updates
  • Indicator Diversity: Reports range from 26-101 indicators spanning physical environment, biological productivity, species status, and human dimensions

1.2.2 Three Distinct Management Approaches

1. FMP/Indicator-Based (NPFMC, PFMC, MAFMC, NEFMC) - Species-based Fishery Management Plans with ecosystem overlays - Annual ecosystem indicators inform catch specification decisions - Risk tables and uncertainty frameworks integrate ecosystem considerations - Non-regulatory Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) provide actionable pathways

2. FEP/Geography-Based (WPFMC, CFMC) - Island or place-based ecosystem plans serve as operational management documents - Co-developed with stakeholders reflecting distinct regional conditions - Emphasis on human community connections and data-limited fisheries - Ecosystem considerations embedded in management structure

3. Developing Approaches (SAFMC, GFMC) - Species-based FMPs with expanding ecosystem integration - SAFMC uniquely links Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) with ecosystem efforts - Gulf developing Fishery Ecosystem Issues (FEIs) as action-oriented framework - Both regions have recent ecosystem reports and climate vulnerability assessments

1.2.3 Climate Vulnerability Analysis Coverage

Most regions have completed Climate Vulnerability Analyses (CVAs) for fish and invertebrates, with some also addressing: - Fishing communities (Northeast, Southeast, Pacific regions) - Critical habitats (Northeast U.S.) - Marine mammals (Atlantic Coast) - Highly Migratory Species (Atlantic Coast)

However, CVA information is underutilized—only the Mid-Atlantic currently incorporates CVA results systematically into risk assessment and catch advice processes.

1.3 Common Management Concerns

Forage Fish Ecology: Multiple Councils have implemented protections for unmanaged forage species or developed harvest control rules accounting for ecosystem services (notably ASMFC’s ecological reference points for Atlantic menhaden).

Climate Change Impacts: All regions are addressing rapid ecosystem changes, though even data-rich systems with long-term ecosystem reporting have experienced unexpected stock collapses, highlighting the need for climate-ready management approaches.

1.4 Promising Practices

  1. Risk-Based Frameworks: North Pacific, Pacific, New England, and Mid-Atlantic are developing or implementing indicator-based risk assessments to adjust catch advice

  2. Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profiles (ESPs): Stock-specific ecosystem reports (pioneered by North Pacific, adopted by Northeast) link environmental drivers to individual stock productivity

  3. Stakeholder Co-Production: Most FEPs emphasize collaborative development of ecosystem models and indicators with fishers, managers, and scientists

  4. Actionable Processes: “Action modules” (North Pacific), “Initiatives” (Pacific), and “Fishery Ecosystem Issues” (Gulf) provide structured pathways from ecosystem plans to management action

1.5 SAFMC Unique Strengths

  • Habitat-Ecosystem Integration: Only Council explicitly linking EFH policies with ecosystem approaches through comprehensive policy statements
  • Citizen Science: Proactive incorporation of participatory data collection
  • Recent Assessments: Current fish CVA (2023) and fishing community CVA (2022) provide ready-to-use information

1.6 Preliminary Recommendations for SAFMC

  1. Leverage Existing Products: Align indicators from the 2021 South Atlantic ESR with objectives in EFH policy documents and CVA results to evaluate whether an integrated risk assessment framework could be developed

  2. Hybrid Approach: Given mix of data-rich and data-limited stocks, consider combining approaches from multiple Councils rather than adopting a single model

  3. Develop Action Process: Consider a process to develop explicit ecosystem initiatives or issues (similar to Pacific, North Pacific, Gulf) to move from planning to tangible management actions on priority topics

  4. Update Reporting Frequency: Work toward more regular ecosystem reporting using streamlined automation processes developed for the Caribbean ESR

  5. Expand CVA Use: Consider climate vulnerability information in management processes where characterizing uncertainty is important

1.7 Resource Considerations

Councils with annual ecosystem reporting dedicate staff resources to production, supplemented by contributions from diverse regional scientists. Southeast Fisheries Science Center serves three Councils (Caribbean, Gulf, South Atlantic) with limited dedicated ecosystem staff, though recent process improvements may enable more frequent updates across all three regions.


Full report contains: Detailed product comparisons across all Councils, comprehensive indicator tables, structured interview results (in progress), and specific pathways for SAFMC implementation addressing both annual catch advice and other management decisions.

2 Introduction

Federal Fishery Management Councils along the U.S. East Coast have been working towards improved management coordination and collaboration for the past several years under the East Coast Scenario Planning Initiative and subsequent East Coast Coordination Group. The purpose of the group is to improve management success in the face of changing ocean conditions and stock distributions that are outside historical bounds; in particular, across traditional management boundaries. A Potential Action Menu was developed for the Coordination Group to improve responsiveness and resilience in fishery management under changing conditions. A key Potential Action Menu item is identifying ecosystem information that can be used by Councils to evaluate changes in ecosystems and fishery resources, and ultimately to develop management that is robust to these changes. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) seeks to identify ecosystem data relevant to its region and managed resources, and to develop strategies to make the best use of ecosystem information in management.

2.1 Project Overview

Ecosystem information and data products are used in different ways across the U.S. Fishery Management Councils, depending on regional needs and information availability. To enhance opportunities for the SAFMC to use ecosystem information to support fishery management, an ecosystem information review is being conducted to develop recommendations for ways to incorporate ecosystem information into SAFMC fisheries management processes. First, a comprehensive literature review will be conducted and combined with structured interviews of key regional personnel to document ecosystem information sources, data products, and processes where ecosystem information is used for each U.S. Fishery Management Council, including SAFMC. This comprehensive review will place current SAFMC practice and products in the context of the experience of all other U.S. Councils, and set the stage to identify opportunities to use its existing ecosystem information resources, including an ecosystem status report, climate vulnerability analyses for fish and fishing communities, and citizen science program.

Based on this review (provided in the current document), opportunities to use ecosystem information in SEFMC processes will be identified, and practical steps for implementation will be outlined. All Councils set annual catch advice, and there are multiple other management decisions where ecosystem information may help reduce uncertainty and support improved management outcomes. The next steps in this project will address both annual catch advice and other SAFMC management actions. The project will evaluate whether products such as Ecosystem Socioeconomic Profiles would be useful and practical for SAFMC catch specification processes given data and staff resources, whether Climate Vulnerability Analysis might be useful for assessing uncertainty and risk in adjusting catch levels, and what other approaches to integrating ecosystem information into catch specification would be feasible. The project will also systematically review SAFMC actions for the past 3-5 years to identify current and potential pathways for the use of ecosystem information. This review will include inter-jurisdictional processes such as the East Coast Climate Scenario Planning and subsequent East Coast Coordination Group. Based on this review, management decisions will be classified by data needs and process timelines to develop a prioritized list of processes linked to ecosystem information and recommend practical pathways for implementation. Example management decisions may include spatial allocation of catch, seasonal openings and closures, or bycatch management, each requiring indicators at different scales. The project will evaluate whether risk based frameworks are appropriate for these decisions, and specify indicators necessary to support decisions. The project will also explore whether global and regional ocean physics datasets could provide useful indicators for SAFMC decisions, using methods developed for the Northeast U.S. shelf. Finally, the project will review current SAFMC cooperative research and citizen science programs and suggest where expansion of these programs would fill the highest priority ecosystem data gaps associated with key management decisions or validate information coming from other sources.

2.2 Objectives

This report addresses the first Project objective:

  1. Review the different types of ecosystem data and information including data products and decision-support tools (e.g. Ecosystem Status Reports, Climate Vulnerability Assessments, risk assessments) currently available to the regional management councils and evaluate how they are used in council management processes.

Results reported here will be integrated with forthcoming findings for the next two project objectives addressing opportunities specific to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council for integrating ecosystem information into its management processes and expanding Citizen Science programs to improve availability of high priority ecosystem information in the region.

2.3 Review Scope

Ecosystem information for the purposes of this report includes information spanning the physical, biological, and human environment. This follows the definition of Ecosystem Based Fishery Management (EBFM) in NOAA Ecosystem policy [1]:

a systematic approach to fisheries management in a geographically specified area that contributes to the resilience and sustainability of the ecosystem; recognizes the physical, biological, economic, and social interactions among the affected fishery-related components of the ecosystem, including humans; and seeks to optimize benefits among a diverse set of societal goals.

This report considers ecosystem information available and processes used in all 8 regional U.S. Fishery Management Councils: North Pacific (NPFMC), Pacific (PFMC), Western Pacific (WPFMC), New England (NEFMC), Mid-Atlantic (MAFMC), Caribbean (CFMC), Gulf (GFMC), and South Atlantic (SAFMC) (Fig. 2.1). In addition, relevant examples from other U.S. organizations, such as the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries are included. Recognizing that these organizations do not operate under the same legislative mandates as Councils, these examples are intended to illustrate uses of ecosystem information that may still be applicable in a Council context.

U.S. Fishery Management Councils; source: https://www.fisherycouncils.org/

Figure 2.1: U.S. Fishery Management Councils; source: https://www.fisherycouncils.org/

2.4 Definitions and abbreviations

Ecosystem Status Report (ESR): a document summarizing ecosystem information for a particular region, spanning physical, biological, economic, and social information. Indicators are presented and interpreted in the context of historical trends and current status relative to any known reference points. Trends and status of indicators can contribute to risk assessment at the ecosystem or stock level. Also known as State of the Ecosystem (SOE) or Ecosystem Considerations reports [1,2].

Climate Vulnerability Analysis (CVA): an evaluation of vulnerability to projected climate conditions based on standard metrics of sensitivity and exposure appropriate to the species, habitat, or community being assessed [3,4]. In addition to detailed narratives of risks faced by each species, habitat, or community, CVA outputs include a ranking of risk across species, habitats, or communities within a region, facilitating risk assessment. CVA has been applied to marine fish and invertebrates, marine fish and invertebrate habitats, marine mammals, and fishing communities.

Fishery Management Plan (FMP): a legally required document outlining methods (management measures, regulations, monitoring, research) to achieve fishery management objectives as specified in the U.S. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Councils determine which fisheries are included in an FMP, describe targeted species and fishing methods, identify essential habitat, and design methods to ensure sustainable optimum yield (maximum benefit to the Nation in terms of seafood production and recreational opportunities while accounting for the protection of marine ecosystems) while meeting other objectives such as bycatch reduction and other legal mandates for protected species.

Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP): a document outlining methods for ecosystem-based fishery management by providing an ecosystem description, overarching ecosystem policies and goals, and methods for coordinating across managed fisheries and addressing ecosystem interactions. When FEPs contain all components of an FMP, they can be used as FMPs. FEPs were originally outlined and recommended in a 1999 report to Congress [5], and operational methods for refining and using FEPs have been advanced more recently [6,7].

3 Methods

3.1 Comprehensive Literature Review

Literature included both peer reviewed scientific literature and Council and other organizational documents that may not appear in peer reviewed literature. Literature search was conducted using Google search and Google scholar, direct search of the NOAA Institutional Repository (IR), and a semi-automated Council webpage search for current and past ecosystem approaches.

Literature search terms for each method included:

  • Google search and google scholar: “ecosystem indicators US fishery management councils”
  • NOAA IR: “ecosystem status report” “climate vulnerability analysis” “fisheries ecosystem plan”

Council web sites were also searched for any documents that included the terms “ecosystem approach”, “ecosystem indicator”, “ecosystem report”, “ecosystem status”, or “ecosystem based” using this web-searching and scraping code.

Documents and information from the Council Coordinating Committee’s recent meetings were retrived from their website:

Relevant Council documents were downloaded as pdfs and have been uploaded to SAFMC shared folders for ESRs, ESPs, FEPs, CVAs, and other Council Documents. All cited papers and Council documents were read and reviewed to generate the information in this report. Artificial intelligence capabilities were used to automate standardized ESR and FEP report summaries across documents as noted below.

3.2 Gather Council and Regional Contextual Data

Contextual information may help explain how Council ecosystem data products and processes evolved, and also highlight approaches that may be useful for SAFMC. Council processes are shaped by the regional context in terms of area managed, number of states involved, range of species managed, level of FEP development, and range of fisheries species and sector diversity, fisheries landing volume, and fishery value.

The area managed by each Council in terms of square km and proportion of the U.S. EEZ was summarized in Table 2 of [8]. The number of U.S. states and territories are represented in each Council region was drawn from https://www.fisherycouncils.org/ and each Council’s website and documents. The number of FMPs and FEPs for each Council was drawn from https://www.fisherycouncils.org/ and validated using individual Council websites and documents.

Current commercial and recreational landings for 2022-2024 were drawn from Fisheries Economics of the US 2022 [9] and its associated web data tool. The most recent year of commercial and recreational landings data available across all regions was 2023, but the most recent recreational value information was from 2022. Landings and value for each sector are reported as proportions of the total for the U.S. because the absolute numbers vary from year to year but rough proportions have been stable recently.

3.3 Summarize and Compare Data Products

Draft ESR document summaries and R code to organize document section and indicator names into datasets were initially generated by Claude Sonnet 4.5 from each pdf file, then thoroughly reviewed and hand corrected where they inaccurately represented ESR content. Summaries were repeated using identical prompts on the same document for two ESRs from different regions to determine whether summaries were consistent. Differences between the replicate summaries were limited to formatting; section headings and indicators identified were consistent across replicates. Code to produce the summary datasets summtab.csv and compesrdat.csv that are used to produce these tables is contained in the document ESRsumms.Rmd.

Note that while indicator counts given here should provide insight for comparisons across regional documents, they are approximate counts. There is interpretation required to count indicators: for example, are abundance and biomass from the same data source two indicators or one? Are time series for different species from the same source presented in one figure one single or multiple indicators? Are monthly vs. annual, local vs. regional sea surface temperature (SST) from the same source different indicators? When reviewing indicator summaries for each report, clearly different indicators were separated to the similar levels reported across all reports.

Council FEP pdf documents were summarized using the Claude API and this code. Summaries included an overview combined with a list of stated ecosystem policies, goals, and objectives in the document along. Summaries were compared with the full documents to ensure consistency, and any newer policy documents not included in the FEPs were reviewed individually. Policies and objectives were compared across Council FEPs with those originally recommended in the Ecosystem Advisory Panel’s 1999 Report to Congress [5].

3.4 Structured Interviews With Council Staff

The primary objective of structured interviews was to determine what the Council’s think about their ecosystem information products and processes.

Council staff from each region were selected for interviews based on their role. Ecosystem, habitat, and/or climate leads were included if Councils identified staff in such roles, along with . Executive directors and or Deputies were also invited for interviews.

Interviews were coordinated with the team leading the Fishery Management Process Review using logistics software developed by that team. Potential interviewees were contacted with an email briefly describing the project goals and an invitation to be interviewed. Those accepting the invitation filled out a google form confirming agreement to be interviewed and gathering basic contact information, years of experience, and initial thoughts on the interview questions listed below, then scheduled an interview at the time of their choice using the software that included the interviewer’s schedule.

Interviews could be 30-90 minutes depending on the interviewee’s selected time slot. All interviews were conducted by Sarah Gaichas.

Interview Template:
* Review Data products from lit review
* Review Uses of record from lit review
* Validate the above, then:
* What other uses not recorded?
* What are successes with current information and processes
* What are and challenges with current information and processes
* What might be done differently to better meet each Council’s objectives

Interviews were scheduled during November and December of 2025.

List of contacts by Council (draft):

NPFMC Contacts: Diana Evans deputy and ecosystems, Diana Stram co led CCTF, Katie Latanich climate program mgr, David Witherell Exec Dir.

PFMC Contacts: Gilly Lyons Ecosystems and climate initiatives, Marlena Bellman SSC lead, Kerry Griffin habitat, Kelly Ames deputy, Merrick Burden Exec Dir.

WPFMC Contacts: Mark Fitchett Pelagic fisheries, Ecosystem scientist, Joshua DeMellow, Island fisheries coordinator, Kitty Simonds Exec Dir.

NEFMC Contacts: Jonathan Peros Fisheries management and Risk policy lead, Jamie Cournane Science and assessment lead, Rachel Feeney SSC lead, Michelle Bachman Habitat lead, Andy Applegate EAFM, Cate O’Keefe Exec Dir.

MAFMC Contacts: Brandon Muffley, Ecosystems SSC and EOP, Jessica Coakley Habitat and EOP, Chris Moore Exec Dir.

CFMC Contacts: Liajay Rivera García FMP and EBFM, Graciela García-Moliner FMP and Habitat, Miguel A. Rolón Exec dir.

GFMC Contacts: Verena Wang Ecosystems, Ryan Rindone Fishery bio and SEDAR, John Froeschke Deputy, Zeenatul Basher Coral and Habitat, Carrie Simmons Exec director.

SAFMC Contacts: Kathleen Howington Habitat & Ecosystem Scientist, Meg Withers Citizen Science Project Coordinator, John Hadley Fishery Management Plan Coordinator & Fishery Economist, Chip Collier Deputy Director for Science, Myra Brouwer Deputy Director for Management, John Carmichael Executive Director.

4 Results

4.1 Council Context and Overview

The Regional U.S. Fishery Management Councils are highly diverse in the amount of area managed, the number of states and territories involved, the number of FMPs and FEPs in place, and commercial and recreational landings and value (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Comparison of Council management context attributes.

Council

EEZ Area (sq km)

Percent of U.S. EEZ

Number of States or Territories

Number of FMPs

Number of FEPs

Percent of 2023 U.S. Commercial Landings

Percent of 2023 U.S. Recreational Landings

Percent of 2023 U.S. Commercial Revenue

Percent of 2022 U.S. Recreational Expenditures

New England

55,947

1.63

5

9

0

4.89

10.14

26.38

4.35

Mid-Atlantic

53,307

1.55

7

7

1

6.33

24.90

8.20

17.15

South Atlantic

143,768

4.18

4

8

1

1.15

24.56

3.36

26.10

Gulf

182,752

5.32

5

7

1

14.89

26.81

15.52

38.03

Caribbean

57,651

1.68

3

3

0

0.04

0.36

-

-

Pacific

231,748

6.74

3

4

1

10.20

2.90

12.54

6.02

North Pacific

1,026,771

29.86

1

6

2

62.12

-

31.48

5.11

Western Pacific

1,686,328

49.05

11

0

5

0.39

10.33

2.51

3.24

All of the Councils have at least one ESR or similar ecosystem data product. However, not all reports are updated annually.

This table gives an overview of which Councils receive which reports, the reporting region, the most recent year of the report, report length, number of sections, approximate number of indicators (see note above), and the first and last section headers in each report (Table 4.2). This give some insight into structural differences between the reports. Additional tables listing sections and numbers of indicators for each report, and listing indicator names for each report, are available online here.

Table 4.2: Comparison of most recent Ecosystem Status Reports (ESRs) across Council regions.

Council

Region

Year

Frequency

Total pages

Number of Sections

Number of Indicators

First Section

Last Section

CFMC

Caribbean

2025

First

66

8

30

Food production

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

GFMC

Gulf

2017

Intermittent

56

7

29

Climate Drivers

Human Dimensions

MAFMC

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Annual

52

11

82

Seafood Production

2024 Highlights

NEFMC

New England

2025

Annual

64

11

82

Seafood Production

2024 Highlights

NPFMC

Aleutian Islands

2024

Annual

123

12

48

Biophysical

Sustainability

NPFMC

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Annual

268

18

101

Physical Environment

Sustainability

NPFMC

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Annual

266

19

63

Physical Environment - Climate

Citizen Science

PFMC

California Current

2025

Annual

178

11

34

Climate and Ocean Drivers

Fishing Activities

SAFMC

South Atlantic

2021

Intermittent

144

7

46

Climate Drivers

Human Dimensions

WPFMC

Hawaii

2022

Intermittent

91

6

26

Human Connections

Vulnerability of Coral Reefs to Climate Change

Most Council regions, aside from the Caribbean, have a completed Climate Vulnerability Analysis (CVA) for fish and invertebrates in the region. Some Council regions have fishing community CVAs, habitat CVAs, and marine mammal CVAs. In addition, an Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) CVA was completed in August 2025. Numbers in the table are the year each CVA was published (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3: Comparison of Climate Vulnerability Analyses (CVAs) available to each Council, with publication year.

CouncilName

FishInvertCVA

HabitatCVA

CommunityCVA

HMSCVA

MammalCVA

New England

2016

2022

2016

2025

2023

Mid-Atlantic

2016

2022

2016

2025

2023

South Atlantic

2023

-

2022

2025

2023

Gulf

2023

-

2022

2025

2023

Caribbean

-

-

-

2025

2023

Pacific

2023

-

2022

-

-

North Pacific

2019

-

-

-

-

Western Pacific

2022

-

-

-

-

Council FEPs (and some FMPs) contain some similar content in terms of ecosystem policies and goals, with regionally specific goals for habitats unique to a given region such as coral reefs. However, Councils have different mechanisms across FEPs or FMPs to operationalize the use of ecosystem information. First FEPs are compared to the contents outlined in the original 1999 report to Congress [5], (Table 4.4). More longstanding FEPs contain many components, while the newer in-progress Gulf FEP has very few as it is being designed according to newer principles [7] to be as actionable as possible. The Pacific, North Pacific Bering Sea, and Mid-Atlantic FEP documents also contain “Initiatives”, “Action Modules” and an EAFM loop process, respectively, to each give each Council a process turn the ecosystem plan into tangible action on a topic.

Table 4.4: Comparison of Council FEPs with FEP components suggested by EPAP 1999. 1 = Included.

Council

Ecosystem Description

Food Web Conceptual Model

Food Web Essential Fish Habitat

Total Removals Objectives

Uncertainty

Ecosystem Health Objectives

Monitoring

Other Ocean Uses Considered

New England*

1

1

-

1

-

1

-

Mid-Atlantic

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

South Atlantic

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

Gulf

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Caribbean

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

Pacific

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

North Pacific

1

1

1

1

-

1

1

Western Pacific

1

-

1

-

1

1

1

4.2 Review of Products and Processes by Council (pre-interview)

In each section below, the Council context, management structure, and use of ecosystem data products is detailed for each region based on the literature review.

This section will be expanded once interview are complete. Questions to be clarified during interviews are included in italics.

4.2.1 NPFMC

The North Pacific Council region includes multiple large marine ecosystems, a single U.S. state (Alaska) and federal waters representing nearly 30% of the US EEZ by area [8,10]. Commercial fisheries dominate landings, with over 60% of 2023 total US landings by weight coming from the North Pacific, representing over 30% of total US commercial revenue [9]. The North Pacific region has the lowest human population of all the Council regions [10]. Stock and ecosystem areas are spatially aligned, and stock and ecosystem assessments are temporally aligned for the groundfish and crab FMPs.

The North Pacific Council manages fisheries using 6 Fishery Management Plans (FMPs): one is area-based (Arctic), and five FMPs are species-based: Crab (5 species), Salmon (5 species), Scallop (1 target species), and two regional multispeces groundfish FMPs: Bering Sea Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA). The Groundfish and Scallop FMPs specify target and ecosystem component species. There are 2 ecosystem component species included in the Scallop FMP in addition to the targeted Weathervane scallops. The BSAI Groundfish FMP covers 19 target species/groups and 27 ecosystem component groups, while the GOA Groundfish FMP covers 21 target species/groups and 35 ecosystem component species/groups. FMP based single species groundfish and crab management has evolved to include ecosystem indicators in the catch specification process, as described below.

The North Pacific Council groundfish FMP specify total groundfish optimimum yield (OY) caps in both the BSAI and the GOA as part of the management measures designed to prevent overfishing. The groundfish OY caps were set in the 1980s based on 85% of the maximum total annual groundfish catch from 1968-1977 in the BSAI, and 92% of the mean MSY from 1983-1987 in the GOA. In the BSAI, the total allowable catch summed across single species assessments has often exceeded the total groundfish catch cap of 2 million metric tons, requiring adjustments to allowable catch for multiple species (primarily, flatfish total allowable catches are reduced) [11]. The GOA total groundfish catch cap of 800,000 metric tons has never been exceeded by sum of single species groundfish allowable catches [12].

The North Pacific Region has three Ecosystem Status Reports (ESRs), one for each ecoregion: Eastern Bering Sea [13], Gulf of Alaska [14], and Aleutian Islands [15]. Reports include graphical and text report cards for each region, ecosystem assessment sections, and detailed indicator sections, with multiple appendices. Tables 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 list indicators presented in the most recent reports. ESRs have been produced since 1995, are also presented as contextual information, and have been used to adjust TAC advice in the past [16]. AFSC staff produce the reports as part of their regular duties (dedicated resources), while contributors range from NOAA staff to academic researchers in the region who have varying availability or resources to update indicators.

Table 4.5: Indicators presented in the Eastern Bering Sea ESR, in order of appearance.

Region

Year

Section

Indicator

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Physical Environment

North Pacific Index (NPI)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Physical Environment

Aleutian Low Pressure System Strength

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Physical Environment

Aleutian Low Pressure System Location

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Physical Environment

Sea Ice Extent

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Physical Environment

Sea Ice Thickness

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Physical Environment

Sea Surface Temperature (SST)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Physical Environment

Bottom Temperature

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Physical Environment

Cold Pool Extent (<2°C)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Physical Environment

Cold Pool Extent (<0°C)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Physical Environment

Surface Wind Speed and Direction

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Physical Environment

Along-shelf Wind Component

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Physical Environment

Cross-shelf Wind Component

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Habitat

Sponge Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Habitat

Sea Anemone Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Habitat

Sea Pen Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Primary Production

St. Paul Island Chlorophyll-a

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Primary Production

Mooring M2 Chlorophyll-a

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Primary Production

Proportion of Open Water Blooms

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Primary Production

Spring Bloom Timing

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Zooplankton

Large Copepod Abundance (Calanus spp.)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Zooplankton

Small Copepod Abundance

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Zooplankton

Large Copepod Lipid Content

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Zooplankton

Euphausiid Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Zooplankton

Euphausiid Lipid Content

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Zooplankton

Continuous Plankton Recorder Indices

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Jellyfish

Jellyfish Surface Trawl CPUE

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Jellyfish

Jellyfish Bottom Trawl Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Ichthyoplankton

Walleye Pollock Larval Abundance

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Ichthyoplankton

Pacific Cod Larval Abundance

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Ichthyoplankton

Northern Rock Sole Larval Abundance

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Ichthyoplankton

Southern Rock Sole Larval Abundance

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Ichthyoplankton

Rockfish Larval Abundance

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Ichthyoplankton

Walleye Pollock Larval Condition

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Forage Fish

Age-0 Pollock Surface Trawl CPUE

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Forage Fish

Age-0 Pollock Vertical Distribution

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Forage Fish

Age-0 Pollock Weight

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Forage Fish

Age-0 Pollock Energy Density

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Forage Fish

Age-0 Pollock Lipid Content

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Forage Fish

Pacific Herring Surface Trawl CPUE

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Forage Fish

Togiak Herring Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Forage Fish

Capelin Surface Trawl CPUE

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Forage Fish

Pelagic Forage Fish Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Forage Fish

Forage Fish DSEM Linkages

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Salmon

Juvenile Sockeye Salmon Abundance

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Salmon

Juvenile Chinook Salmon Abundance (NBS)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Salmon

Juvenile Chum Salmon Abundance (NBS)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Salmon

Juvenile Salmon Energy Density (SEBS)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Salmon

Juvenile Salmon Energy Density (NBS)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Salmon

Bristol Bay Sockeye Salmon Run Size

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Salmon

Commercial Salmon Catch (Bering Sea)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Walleye Pollock Condition (length-weight)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Pacific Cod Condition (length-weight)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Arrowtooth Flounder Condition

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Yellowfin Sole Condition

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Flathead Sole Condition

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Northern Rock Sole Condition

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Alaska Plaice Condition

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Walleye Pollock Diet Composition

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Pacific Cod Diet Composition

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Pacific Cod Snow Crab Consumption

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Groundfish Thermal Experience

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Groundfish Diet Energy Density

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Groundfish Consumption Rate

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Groundfish Scope for Growth

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Age-1 Natural Mortality (CEATTLE)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Groundfish

Predation Mortality

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Recruitment Predictions

Temperature Change Index

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Recruitment Predictions

Surface Silicic Acid

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Benthic Communities

Eelpout Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Benthic Communities

Poacher Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Benthic Communities

Sea Star Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Benthic Communities

Bristol Bay Red King Crab Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Benthic Communities

Pribilof Island Blue King Crab Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Benthic Communities

St. Matthew Blue King Crab Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Benthic Communities

Snow Crab Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Benthic Communities

Tanner Crab Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Seabirds

Common Murre Reproductive Success

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Seabirds

Thick-billed Murre Reproductive Success

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Seabirds

Black-legged Kittiwake Reproductive Success

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Seabirds

Red-legged Kittiwake Reproductive Success

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Seabirds

Least Auklet Reproductive Success

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Seabirds

Red-faced Cormorant Reproductive Success

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Seabirds

Multivariate Seabird Breeding Index

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Seabirds

Beached Bird Abundance

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Marine Mammals

Marine Mammal Stranding Events

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Ecosystem Indicators

Mean Lifespan of Fish Community

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Ecosystem Indicators

Mean Length of Fish Community

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Ecosystem Indicators

Stability of Fish Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Ecosystem Indicators

Borealization Index

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Foraging Guilds

Motile Epifauna Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Foraging Guilds

Benthic Forager Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Foraging Guilds

Pelagic Forager Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Foraging Guilds

Apex Predator Biomass

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Emerging Stressors

Bottom Water pH

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Emerging Stressors

Aragonite Saturation State

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Emerging Stressors

Alexandrium Cell Concentration

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Emerging Stressors

Paralytic Shellfish Toxin (Saxitoxin)

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Emerging Stressors

Domoic Acid Concentration

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Discards & Bycatch

Non-target Invertebrate Catch

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Discards & Bycatch

Seabird Bycatch Estimates

Eastern Bering Sea

2024

Sustainability

Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI)

Table 4.6: Indicators presented in the Aleutian Islands ESR, in order of appearance.

Region

Year

Section

Indicator

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

Sea Surface Temperature SST

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

Sea Level Pressure SLP

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

wind patterns

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

NINO3.4

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

PDO

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

North Pacific Index

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

NPGO

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

Arctic Oscillation

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

Aleutian Low Index

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

NMME forecast models (1-5 month projections)

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

Extended Reconstructed SST 1900-2024

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

Daily SST

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

MHW frequency

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

MHW intensity

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

MHW spatial extent

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

Survey surface water temperatures

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

Survey bottom water temperatures

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

Eddy kinetic energy from satellite altimetry

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

Mesozooplankton biomass

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

diatom abundance

Aleutian Islands

2024

Biophysical

copepod community size

Aleutian Islands

2024

Habitat

Biomass of sponges

Aleutian Islands

2024

Habitat

Biomass of corals

Aleutian Islands

2024

Habitat

Biomass of anemones

Aleutian Islands

2024

Habitat

Biomass of sea pens

Aleutian Islands

2024

Jellyfish

Jellyfish biomass from bottom trawl surveys

Aleutian Islands

2024

Salmon

Pink salmon abundance and biomass (biennial)

Aleutian Islands

2024

Groundfish

Length-weight residuals (body condition index)

Aleutian Islands

2024

Groundfish

Mean weighted distribution by depth, temperature, geographic position

Aleutian Islands

2024

Benthic Nontarget

Biomass of eelpouts

Aleutian Islands

2024

Benthic Nontarget

Biomass of poachers

Aleutian Islands

2024

Benthic Nontarget

Biomass of shrimps

Aleutian Islands

2024

Benthic Nontarget

Biomass of sea stars

Aleutian Islands

2024

Seabirds

Hatch dates

Aleutian Islands

2024

Seabirds

Reproductive success

Aleutian Islands

2024

Seabirds

Diet composition

Aleutian Islands

2024

Seabirds

Beached birds

Aleutian Islands

2024

Seabirds

Seabird bycatch mortality by species and gear type

Aleutian Islands

2024

Marine Mammals

Non-pup and pup counts at rookeries

Aleutian Islands

2024

Marine Mammals

Number and species of stranded marine mammals

Aleutian Islands

2024

Ecosystem or Community

Inverse CV of total groundfish biomass

Aleutian Islands

2024

Ecosystem or Community

Biomass-weighted mean length

Aleutian Islands

2024

Ecosystem or Community

Biomass-weighted mean lifespan

Aleutian Islands

2024

Disease Ecology

PST levels in mussels; toxic algal species presence

Aleutian Islands

2024

Fishing Human Dimensions

Bycatch of jellyfish

Aleutian Islands

2024

Fishing Human Dimensions

Bycatch of epifauna

Aleutian Islands

2024

Fishing Human Dimensions

Bycatch of invertebrates

Aleutian Islands

2024

Sustainability

Overfishing/overfished status full BSAI; biomass relative to BMSY

Table 4.7: Indicators presented in the Gulf of Alaska ESR, in order of appearance.

Region

Year

Section

Indicator

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Physical Environment - Climate

State of the North Pacific Ocean

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Physical Environment - Climate

Wintertime Aleutian Low Index

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Physical Environment - Climate

Seasonal Projections (NMME)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Physical Environment - Climate

Predicted Ocean Temperatures (Sitka Air Temperature)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Physical Environment - Ocean Temperature

Long-term SST trends (1900-2024)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Physical Environment - Ocean Temperature

Satellite-derived SST

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Physical Environment - Ocean Temperature

Survey-based temperatures (surface and depth)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Physical Environment - Ocean Temperature

Marine Heatwave Status

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Physical Environment - Ocean Transport

Eddy Kinetic Energy

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Physical Environment - Ocean Transport

Papa Trajectory Index

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Physical Environment - Ocean Transport

Northern GOA Oscillation/Downwelling Index

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Physical Environment - Ocean Transport

Coastal Wind Patterns (April-May)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Habitat

Ocean Acidification (pH levels)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Habitat

Dissolved Oxygen

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Primary Production

Satellite Chlorophyll-a

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Primary Production

Seward Line Phytoplankton Size Index

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Primary Production

GAK1 Mooring Oceanography

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Zooplankton

Continuous Plankton Recorder

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Zooplankton

Copepod Biomass and Community Size

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Zooplankton

Euphausiid Biomass (Seward Line)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Zooplankton

Zooplankton Density (Icy Strait)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Zooplankton

Zooplankton Lipid Content

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Forage Fish

Larval Fish Abundance

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Forage Fish

Age-0 Pollock Body Condition

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Forage Fish

Seabird Diet Composition

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Forage Fish

Capelin Abundance Indices

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Forage Fish

Herring Biomass (SE Alaska)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Forage Fish

Eulachon Returns

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Salmon

Commercial Salmon Catch

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Salmon

Juvenile Salmon Abundance/Condition (Icy Strait)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Salmon

Auke Creek Salmon Survival

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Groundfish

Groundfish Body Condition

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Groundfish

ADF&G Trawl Survey

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Groundfish

Predation Mortality (CEATTLE model)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Groundfish

Survey Biomass Trends

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Groundfish

Environmental Conditions Experienced by Groundfish

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Groundfish

Groundfish Diets

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Benthic Communities

Motile Epifauna Biomass

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Benthic Communities

Structural Epifauna

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Seabirds

Seabird Breeding Timing

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Seabirds

Seabird Reproductive Success

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Seabirds

Seabird Mortality Events

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Seabirds

Seabird At-sea Distribution (Seward Line)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Marine Mammals

Humpback Whale Calving (Glacier Bay/Icy Strait)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Marine Mammals

Marine Mammal Strandings

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Marine Mammals

Steller Sea Lion Population Trends

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Prince William Sound

Intertidal Temperature

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Prince William Sound

Intertidal Communities (mussels, rockweed, sea stars)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Prince William Sound

Prince William Sound Herring Biomass

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Prince William Sound

Humpback Whale Fall Surveys (PWS)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Fishing Indicators

Groundfish Discards

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Fishing Indicators

Non-target Species Catch

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Fishing Indicators

Seabird Bycatch

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Habitat Quality

Fishing Effects on Essential Fish Habitat

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Sustainability

Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Sustainability

Surplus Production/Exploitation Rate

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Disease & Toxins

Harmful Algal Blooms (PSP toxins)

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Disease & Toxins

Mushy Halibut Syndrome Occurrence

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Ecosystem Community Indicators

Foraging Guild Biomass

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Ecosystem Community Indicators

Community Stability

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Ecosystem Community Indicators

Mean Length/Lifespan of Fish Community

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Ecosystem Community Indicators

Species Richness/Diversity

Gulf of Alaska

2024

Citizen Science

Skipper Science Observations

In the North Pacific region, Ecosystem and Socio-economic Profiles (ESPs), an ecosystem status report tailored to an individual stock, were invented [17] and are produced for select stocks: Alaska sablefish [18], Eastern Bering Sea Pacific cod [19], Eastern Bering Sea snow crab [20], Bristol Bay red king crab [21], Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands tanner crab [22], Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel [23], Gulf of Alaska pollock [24], Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod [25], and Gulf of Alaska arrowtooth flounder [26].

In addition to these ecosystem and stock specific indicator reports, the Council receives reports on unmanaged forage fish [27], grenadiers [28], and a multispecies model incorporating climate drivers for Eastern Bering Sea pollock, cod, and arrowtooth flounder [29]. A separate annual economic status report [30] is also presented. All are available online https://www.npfmc.org/library/safe-reports/.

ESRs are produced annually, and many ESPs are updated annually, with both presented alongside updated stock assessments in the Council’s annual specifications process. Both ESRs and ESPs feed into annual catch specification through risk tables presented in stock assessments [31]. Both data products draw on process research conducted in the region to develop indicators (Fig. 4.1).

North Pacific ecosystem data in management processes, reprinted from Siddon, E. 2025 Fig. 1

Figure 4.1: North Pacific ecosystem data in management processes, reprinted from Siddon, E. 2025 Fig. 1

To date, risk tables incorporating ecosystem indicators have been presented in up to 18 stock assessments annually. Since risk tables were introduced in 2018, 14 stocks have had reductions in ABC from the maximum permissible due to risk information (including stock assessment, population dynamics, and fishery concerns as well as ecosystem concerns). In 2024, reductions to three stock ABCs were based on stock assessment, population dynamics, and fishery considerations. No reductions were taken in response to ecosystem considerations.

FEPs have been developed for the Aleutian Islands (2007, inactive) and the Bering Sea (2019, active). The Bering Sea FEP intends to use ESRs for monitoring progress against ecosystem objectives, and has “action modules” focusing on climate readiness, incorporation of local and traditional knowledge, evaluating current management alongside EBFM best practice, developing conceptual models, and alignment of Council priorities with research funding.

The first two FEP action modules have been initiated, and a final report is available from the Climate Change Task Force, as well as a ranking of climate readiness completed by the Climate Change Task force. Climate readiness was ranked 2-3 out of a possible scale of 5 This report noted the importance of ESRs in providing links between observed trends and long term climate change (Fig. 4.2).

NPFMC Climate readiness evaluation 2022, from FEP action module

Figure 4.2: NPFMC Climate readiness evaluation 2022, from FEP action module

A Climate Vulnerability Analysis for 36 Bering Sea fish and invertebrate species has been published [32], however its direct use in management processes is unclear. Climate vulnerability analysis has yet not been completed for Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, or Arctic species. The Climate Ready Synthesis recommended inclusion of climate vulnerability information in status reports/risk assessments.

Climate and ecosystem impacts have become even more urgent to NPFMC due to climate driven fishery collapses in recent years (Gulf of Alaska cod [33], Bering Sea snow crab [34]). There are three main emphases of current Council work regarding the use of ecosystem information, reflecting priorities from the FEP modules:
* Integrating local and traditional knowledge * Building climate resilience * Accounting for risk and uncertainty in harvest specifications

A climate scenario planning workshop took place in June 2024. This workshop was structured differently from those in other regions, with scenarios were developed by scientific staff based on IPCC pathways adjusted for Alaska, rather than with stakeholder workshops developing narrative contrasting scenarios. The focus was on all Alaska regions rather than just Bering Sea, developing short stories of stock dynamics under the different climate scenarios.

In December 2024 the Council established a Climate Resilience Workplan based on recommendations of the Climate Change Task Force. The workplan identifies near-term opportunities for incorporating existing and emergent climate science, creating an onramp for future work into the Council process.

The SSC held a workshop in June 2025 to address a Council October 2024 motion “Consider to what extent, and whether, to revise groundfish and crab harvest control rules (HCRs) to be more climate-resilient.” To build upon these efforts, in 2026 with the advice from its Groundfish and Crab Plan Teams as well as recommendations from the SSC, the Council will begin to select a range of climate resilient HCRs for consideration and a framework for when to implement them in order to bring climate awareness and flexibility for groundfish and crab stocks in the North Pacific.

NPFMC Staff identified both successes and challenges with the use of ecosystem information in their region. Successes were attributed to rich scientific and resources combined with predictably structured Council processes where participants from scientific, management, and fishing backgrounds can learn from each other. Challenges related to the complexity of ecosystem and management issues and effectively communicating complexity, as well as capacity limitations.

The data and resource rich environment has supported both the successful long term annual production of ecosystem reports and the institutional knowledge base among both scientists and professional industry participants. The current ecosystem products and management processes are well established, with participants knowing what to expect and when to expect it. In depth discussions of the ESR are common at Council meetings. In addition, the structure of NPFMC meetings (alignment of SSC, the single AP, and Council all in the same week) allows new participants to see many aspects of process and data before having to make decisions.

Recent initiatives have been successful by further engaging a range of participants to make progress on targeted ecosystem issues. The Climate Change Task Force was successful in getting Council, scientific, and public participants at the table to do the critical work of translating both the available science and the management process for each other. This group was able to connect what information is ready when, and where to insert that information in the management process to be most useful. This allowed them to identify clear short term actionable information use and activities. As part of the climate scenario workshop with a range of participants, climate fishery disasters were critically evaluated for potential signals to determine what might be done to be better prepared? There was some evidence that fishery performance might have been leading indicator of the GOA cod collapse, and that signals in crab surveys might have warned of the crab collapse.

The general complexity of ecosystem issues was identified as a significant challenge. While there are well-developed modeling suites capable of addressing climate and ecosystem interactions in the region, these can be difficult for the Council and the public to understand and value. Formulating management-relevant questions that can be answered with the models is difficult without technical knowledge of both the management process and the scientific tools, requiring a dedicated process like the Climate Change Task Force to bring the right skillsets together. The climate HCR work in progress is helping the Council understand the applications of complex ecosystem models, but this work is currently in the more technical Plan Team and SSC processes. Results may be challenging to translate for managers and the general public.

Additional challenges are related to capacity limitations even in this resource rich environment. The Council’s FEP driven Climate Change Task Force identified a need for additional resources to implement recommendations for improving climate readiness. Some tasks such as developing CVAs for the Council’s other ecoregions besides the Bering Sea, or considering an FEP for the GOA are limited by capacity. Finally, there are general challenges with getting new information into an existing process or new people introduced to a process that can limit the uptake of ecosystem information.

Some potential innovations suggested for incorporating ecosystem information included how to make the best use of observations from fishers on the water, ways to use ecosystem information in addition to adding precaution by reducing allowable catches, and metrics of success that describe improved ecosystem function. Thinking more broadly about ecosystem objectives and defining what a “better” ecosystem looks like could provide future opportunities in this region.

4.2.2 PFMC

The Pacific Council region includes one large marine ecosystem, the California Current, spanning three states (Washington, Oregon, and California) and federal waters representing almost 7% of the US EEZ [8,10]. The region is dominated by commercial fisheries prosecuting diverse Pacific rockfish stocks, groundfish, and pelagics, representing 10% of 2023 US landings by weight and 12.5% of commercial revenue [9]. The Pacific region has the second highest human population of all the Council regions, and ranks fourth in population density [10].

The Pacific Council manages under 4 multispecies FMPs: Salmon (3 species), Groundfish (86 species), Coastal pelagic species (8 species groups), and Highly migratory species (11 species). An additional 8 species groups are shared ecosystem component species across all FMPs.

The Pacific Council FEP was developed in 2013 and revised in 2022. The 2022 FEP is informational and not prescriptive, retaining Council discretion to act on ecosystem information. It specifies goals and objectives as well as “ecosystem initiatives” that focus on priority actions (described below). The FEP includes an outline of ecosystem science uses in the Council process.

FEP Initiative 1 prohibited directed fishing on currently unexploited, unmanaged forage fish in the region and was completed in 2015. FEP Initiative 2 reviewed the ESR 2015-2016 to better inform the Council of both ecosystem indicators and processes and the potential use of this information in management [35]. FEP Initiative 3, completed in 2019, was the Climate and Communities initiative to evaluate potential impacts of climate change and identify ways to improve flexibility and responsiveness of management. As part of this initiative, climate scenario planning was completed.

As prescribed in its FMP, The Pacific Council receives a single ESR produced annually for the California Current ecoregion [36], consisting of a graphical summary and ~40 page main report with many detailed appendices for indicators and methods (Table 4.8). Additional appendices are included for both short term and long term ecological and climate forecasts. Forecast uncertainty and evaluation of previous forecasts are included.

Table 4.8: Indicators presented in the California Current ESR, in order of appearance.

Region

Year

Section

Indicator

California Current

2025

Climate and Ocean Drivers

Oceanic Niño Index (ONI)

California Current

2025

Climate and Ocean Drivers

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

California Current

2025

Climate and Ocean Drivers

North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (NPGO)

California Current

2025

Climate and Ocean Drivers

Sea Surface Temperature

California Current

2025

Climate and Ocean Drivers

Coastal Upwelling Transport Index (CUTI)

California Current

2025

Climate and Ocean Drivers

Biologically Effective Upwelling Transport Index (BEUTI)

California Current

2025

Climate and Ocean Drivers

Habitat Compression Index (HCI)

California Current

2025

Climate and Ocean Drivers

Dissolved Oxygen (Hypoxia)

California Current

2025

Climate and Ocean Drivers

Ocean Acidification (Aragonite Saturation)

California Current

2025

Climate and Ocean Drivers

Snow-Water Equivalent (SWE)

California Current

2025

Climate and Ocean Drivers

Streamflow and Stream Temperature

California Current

2025

Copepods and Krill

Northern Copepod Biomass Anomaly

California Current

2025

Copepods and Krill

Krill (Euphausia pacifica) Length and Biomass

California Current

2025

CPS and Regional Forage

Coastwide CPS Abundance

California Current

2025

CPS and Regional Forage

Northern CCE Forage (JSOES)

California Current

2025

CPS and Regional Forage

Central CCE Forage (RREAS)

California Current

2025

Salmon Indicators

Juvenile Salmon Abundance (CPUE)

California Current

2025

Salmon Indicators

Columbia Basin Chinook Stoplight Table

California Current

2025

Salmon Indicators

California Chinook Stoplight Table

California Current

2025

Groundfish

Juvenile Groundfish Abundance

California Current

2025

Groundfish

Groundfish Distribution (Center of Gravity)

California Current

2025

Highly Migratory Species

HMS Spawning Stock Biomass

California Current

2025

Highly Migratory Species

HMS Diet Composition

California Current

2025

Seabird Indicators

Seabird Fledgling Production

California Current

2025

Seabird Indicators

Seabird Diet Composition

California Current

2025

Seabird Indicators

Seabird Mortality Events

California Current

2025

Marine Mammals

California Sea Lion Pup Counts

California Current

2025

Marine Mammals

Whale Entanglements

California Current

2025

Harmful Algal Blooms

Domoic Acid Concentrations

California Current

2025

Human Wellbeing

Community Social Vulnerability Index (CSVI)

California Current

2025

Human Wellbeing

Fishery Revenue Diversification (ESI)

California Current

2025

Human Wellbeing

Fisheries Participation Networks

California Current

2025

Fishing Activities

Commercial Landings by Fishery

California Current

2025

Fishing Activities

Recreational Landings

ESP like products [37,38] exist for at least 2 species. Which assessments include ecosystem indicators directly?

A CVA has been completed for 64 managed fish stocks, spanning the PFMC FMPs [39]. The CVA information is proposed for use as a component in the process determining ABC uncertainty buffers (see below). In addition, a salmon CVA [40] and a west coast fishing community CVA [41] are available.

The SSC is evaluating risk tables in progress for stock assessments and ABC decisions (see below), but they are reframed as uncertainty tables using IPCC “confidence” language on degree of agreement of indicators and robustness of evidence). FEP Initiative 4, Ecosystem and Climate Information for Species, Fisheries, and FMPs, is currently active and is developing an ecosystem and climate risk assessment framework for use in the catch specification process. This is patterned on the use of risk tables in NPFMC harvest specification, but is tailored to the p* process used in PFMC. The ecosystem team tested options and recommended one where ecosystem and climate risks would alter the sigma applied to characterize scientific uncertainty in the OFL (sigma is equivalent to the MAFMC SSC OFL CV). PFMC sigmas are 0.5 for high certainty assessments, 1 for data moderate assessments, and 2 for data limited assessments, with additional increases in sigma as time passes since the most recent assessment. Ecosystem and climate risks could further inform sigma, increasing or decreasing it as these factors increase or decrease uncertainty.

In lieu of an ESP type product, the proposal would be for ecosystem and stock scientists to have a structured conversation to identify key uncertainties in the assessment and evaluate ecosystem drivers of the stock not included in the assessment to fill out a table indicating whether ecosystem conditions are favorable, neutral, or unfavorable for the stock. This draws on previous literature and the indicators reported in the ESR. Information from the CVA for each stock is included in this discussion. The structured discussion template is included in the 2024 report.

Use in other management processes?

Both the Northwest and Southwest fisheries science centers have dedicated staff supporting ESR production. The CCIEA team developed the recommendation for use of assessment and ecosystem information in the SSC’s ABC decision process.

4.2.3 WPFMC

The Western Pacific Council manages with 5 place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans established in 2010: Hawaii, American Samoa, Mariana, Pacific remote islands, Pelagic. The Council established the first US ecosystem based FMP for coral reefs in 2004, and initiated development of its FEPs in 2005 with a series of workshops introducing and developing EAFM, focusing on biophysical, social science, and policy aspects of EAFM [42]. Fishery and protected species management issues as well as ecosystem information are considered in each FEP. The Council guiding principles include promoting an ecosystem approach. The Council has Regional Ecosystem Advisory Committees (REACs) made up of Council members and government officials, business, academic, and NGO representatives who are responsible for or interested in activities on land and outside fisheries that may affect fishery management; REACs represent Hawaii, American Samoa, and the Mariana Archipelago.

Western Pacific SAFE reports for each FEP include three sections: fishery performance, ecosystem considerations, and data integration, and are available at https://www.wpcouncil.org/annual-reports/. Fishery performance includes catch and effort information. The ecosystem considerations include fisher observations, coral reef fish biomass and habitat condition indicators, life history parameters, socioeconomics, protected species, climate and ocean indicators, EFH, and marine planning sections (updated through 2024). The data integration section is intended to link environmental indicators with managed stocks. These sections are less developed in each SAFE. The Hawaii example is uku, but it appears it has not been updated since 2018 and includes data through 2012 [43]. There is an ESP for Hawaii uku [44]; is this being used in the assessment or management or integrated into the SAFE? The American Samoa [45] and Marianas Archipelago data integration sections includes multivariate analysis updated through 2016 [46]. Pelagic [47] and Pacific Remote Island Area [48] all include updated climate and ocean indicators. June 2025 Council discussions suggested that summaries of what has changed in SAFEs would be useful for the Council; “dashboard” presentations are being considered by the FEP teams.

There is a p* process and a Social, Ecological, Economic, and Management (SEEM) process for specifying scientific and management uncertainty, respectively. The p* is done by the SSC while the SEEM process is a collaboration between fishers, scientists, and managers. Research priorities for the coming years seek to bound harvest levels based on stock and ecosystem productivity while considering climate change effects on productivity.

An ESR for Hawaii with the same geographic scope as Hawaii FEP was produced in 2022 [49]; prior reports were for West Hawaii only. The 2022 report includes socioeconomic, fisheries, coral reef, climate, human impact, and coral reef climate vulnerability sections, and identifies cumulative impacts (Table 4.9. Aspects on nearshore fisheries were included at the request of the Council. Habitat recovery is noted to depend on both land based and fishery management. PIFSC is on the Hawaii REAC for the Council. Has the ecosystem considerations portion of each SAFE replaced this? How related are they?

Table 4.9: Indicators presented in the Hawaii ESR, in order of appearance.

Region

Year

Section

Indicator

Hawaii

2022

Human Connections

Population density and growth

Hawaii

2022

Human Connections

Resource use participation rates

Hawaii

2022

Human Connections

Awareness of threats

Hawaii

2022

Human Connections

Perceptions of ecosystem status and trends

Hawaii

2022

Small Boat Commercial Fishers

Fishing Engagement Index (FEI)

Hawaii

2022

Small Boat Commercial Fishers

Regional Quotient for revenue

Hawaii

2022

Small Boat Commercial Fishers

Total catch by fishery

Hawaii

2022

Small Boat Commercial Fishers

Catch per trip

Hawaii

2022

Small Boat Commercial Fishers

Spatial distribution of catch

Hawaii

2022

Coral Reefs and Reef Fish

Hard coral cover (%)

Hawaii

2022

Coral Reefs and Reef Fish

Calcifiers cover (%)

Hawaii

2022

Coral Reefs and Reef Fish

Reef-builder ratio

Hawaii

2022

Coral Reefs and Reef Fish

Total fish biomass (kg/ha)

Hawaii

2022

Coral Reefs and Reef Fish

Herbivore biomass (kg/ha)

Hawaii

2022

Coral Reefs and Reef Fish

Resource fish biomass (kg/ha)

Hawaii

2022

Climate and Ocean

El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index

Hawaii

2022

Climate and Ocean

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) index

Hawaii

2022

Climate and Ocean

Annual rainfall and peak events (mm)

Hawaii

2022

Climate and Ocean

Brown water advisories (count/year)

Hawaii

2022

Climate and Ocean

Sea level rise (m)

Hawaii

2022

Climate and Ocean

Sea surface temperature (°C)

Hawaii

2022

Human Impacts

Cumulative impact scores

Hawaii

2022

Human Impacts

Individual stressor intensities

Hawaii

2022

Vulnerability of Coral Reefs to Climate Change

Projected timing of annual severe bleaching (year)

Hawaii

2022

Vulnerability of Coral Reefs to Climate Change

Climate vulnerability scores

Hawaii

2022

Vulnerability of Coral Reefs to Climate Change

Reef resilience assessments

CVA was conducted for 83 fish and invertebrate species across pelagic, deep slope, coastal, and coral reef habitats across full Pacific Islands region [50]. Are there plans to included/reference CVA in FEP SAFE reports?

Active spatial ecosystem indicators include turtle watch that is updated daily to indicate regions of potential turtle bycatch for pelagic fisheries based on temperature, and ocean watch that summarizes ocean conditions in key fishing and coral areas. Ocean watch data includes coral reef bleaching hotspot and alert area data. Does this translate into an indicator being used?

There is a Fisheries Ecosystem Analysis Tool (FEAT) online that summarizes fishery performance indicators 2002-2018 (landings, revenue, and participation by fleet and region), cost data through 2016, nearshore state and island fishery trends, spatial catch and effort in the Western Pacific, and reports on social science work.

The State of Hawaii is using layers on cumulative impacts, habitat efforts are also using the information.

The Hawaii EEZ is slightly bigger than the West Coast EEZ, and the full Western Pacific region represents nearly half of the total U.S. EEZ. Resources for ecosystem reporting are limited in PIFSC, but many scientists are listed as contributors to SAFEs. How are resources allocated to ecosystem work?

4.2.4 NEFMC

The New England Council manages under 9 FMPs. Three are mutispecies FMPs: Northeast multispecies (“groundfish”), Small mesh multispecies, and Skates; and six are single species FMPs: Atlantic Scallop, Atlantic Herring, Monkfish, Dogfish, Salmon, Deep Sea Red Crab. Dogfish and Monkfish FMPs are joint with the Mid-Atlantic Council. The Atlantic Herring FMP features a harvest control rule that was designed to account for herring’s role as forage in the ecosystem using a multi-species stakeholder-driven management strategy evaluation [51,52].

An example FEP was developed between 2012 and 2024 illustrating ecosystem based management on Georges Bank, including management with aggregate ecosystem and fish guild level total allowable catches (ceilings) and single species minimum biomass thresholds (floors) for 10 species on Georges Bank. The proposed EBFM was designed to address both ecological and fleet technical interactions and the need for increased fishery operational flexibility. However, this FEP was not formally adopted, and the Council has suspended development of this FEP approach in favor of the new indicator-based risk policy operating within established FMPs (described below).

Habitat policies in New England address the interactions of fisheries with broader ocean uses such as offshore wind development, oil and gas development, aquaculture, and submarine cables, extending into Ecosystem Based Management (EBM). A recent Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) review was conducted jointly with the Mid-Atlantic Council for all Northeast U.S. managed stocks. This comprehensive review included new information on predator-prey relationships for managed species and resulted in an online dashboard summarizing the diet data for each managed species based on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s long term food habits monitoring program.

The New England region gets a State of the Ecosystem (SOE) report each year that covers two ecoregions: the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank [53]. Coastwide Northeast U.S. indicators are also included. The New England SOE report includes a graphical summary section and three report sections: performance against fishery management objectives, risks to meeting fishery management objectives, and ecosystem highlights from the most recent year (Table 4.10. Fishery management objectives are drawn from U.S. legislation [54], and risks include climate-driven changes and other ocean uses (offshore wind development).

Table 4.10: Indicators presented in the New England ESR, in order of appearance.

Region

Year

Section

Indicator

New England

2025

Seafood Production

Total commercial landings

New England

2025

Seafood Production

Total U.S. seafood landings

New England

2025

Seafood Production

NEFMC managed seafood landings

New England

2025

Seafood Production

Landings by feeding guild

New England

2025

Seafood Production

Total Community Climate Vulnerability of landings

New England

2025

Seafood Production

Recreational harvest

New England

2025

Seafood Production

Recreational shark landings

New England

2025

Seafood Production

Stock status (F/Fmsy, B/Bmsy)

New England

2025

Seafood Production

Survey biomass by feeding guild

New England

2025

Commercial Profits

Total revenue

New England

2025

Commercial Profits

NEFMC managed species revenue

New England

2025

Commercial Profits

Bennet Indicator (price vs volume)

New England

2025

Commercial Profits

Revenue by feeding guild

New England

2025

Commercial Profits

Total Community Climate Vulnerability of revenue

New England

2025

Recreational Opportunities

Angler trips (recreational effort)

New England

2025

Recreational Opportunities

Recreational fleet diversity

New England

2025

Stability

Commercial fleet count

New England

2025

Stability

Commercial species revenue diversity

New England

2025

Stability

Recreational species catch diversity

New England

2025

Stability

Total annual primary production

New England

2025

Stability

Zooplankton diversity (Shannon Index)

New England

2025

Stability

Adult fish diversity (expected number of species)

New England

2025

Stability

Fish community functional traits - fecundity

New England

2025

Stability

Fish community functional traits - pace of life

New England

2025

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Commercial fishing engagement

New England

2025

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Commercial fishing per capita engagement

New England

2025

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Social vulnerability indices

New England

2025

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Recreational fishing engagement

New England

2025

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Recreational per capita engagement

New England

2025

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Community total climate vulnerability of revenue

New England

2025

Protected Species

Harbor porpoise bycatch

New England

2025

Protected Species

Gray seal bycatch

New England

2025

Protected Species

North Atlantic Right Whale abundance

New England

2025

Protected Species

North Atlantic Right Whale calf counts

New England

2025

Protected Species

Gray seal pup births

New England

2025

Protected Species

Unusual Mortality Events

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Fish distribution shifts (center of gravity)

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Marine mammal distribution shifts

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Forage fish distribution shifts

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Small copepod distribution

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Calanus finmarchicus distribution

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Macrobenthos distribution

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Sea surface temperature

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Gulf Stream position

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Seasonally

Spawning timing shifts

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Seasonally

HMS and whale migration timing changes

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Seasonally

Ocean summer length

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Seasonally

Cold Pool persistence

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Seasonally

Phytoplankton bloom timing

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Seasonally

Spawning-environment relationships

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Fish productivity (small per large fish)

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Fish productivity (recruitment per SSB)

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Common tern productivity

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Atlantic salmon return rates

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Fish condition

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Forage fish energy density

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Forage fish biomass

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Macrobenthos biomass

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Megabenthos biomass

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Zooplankton biomass and composition

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Calanus finmarchicus abundance

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Temperature extremes and marine heatwaves

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Ocean acidification

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Hypoxia

New England

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Predator populations (gray seals, HMS)

New England

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

Development timeline and lease areas

New England

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

NEFMC fishery revenue from lease areas

New England

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

NEFMC fishery landings from lease areas

New England

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

Port-level revenue from lease areas

New England

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

Community social vulnerability in wind areas

New England

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

Right whale habitat overlap

New England

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

Survey area overlap

New England

2025

2024 Highlights

Labrador Slope Water influx

New England

2025

2024 Highlights

Gulf Stream position anomaly

New England

2025

2024 Highlights

Arctic Calanus presence

New England

2025

2024 Highlights

Species migration delays

New England

2025

2024 Highlights

Species redistribution

New England

2025

2024 Highlights

Chesapeake Bay conditions

New England

2025

2024 Highlights

Upwelling events and unusual blooms

New England

2025

2024 Highlights

Whale aggregations

New England

2025

2024 Highlights

Ocean acidification extremes

New England

2025

2024 Highlights

Scallop recruitment variability

Ecosystem profiles and ESPs have been produced for 3 species during research track assessments: American plaice [55,56], Atlantic cod [5759], and Atlantic herring [60]. All Northeast US ESPs to date are listed here: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/ecosystems/ecosystem-and-socioeconomic-profile-development-and-reports

To date ecosystem indicators have been integrated into 2 research track stock assessments for Southern New England Mid Atlantic (Gulf Stream Index controls expected recruitment) and Georges Bank (deviation from BH recruitment controlled by bottom temperature) yellowtail flounder. Decisions to include indicators were based on literature review and statistical indicator testing similar to an ESP process.

A climate vulnerability analysis for 82 Northeast U.S. fish and invertebrate species has been published [61], and provides input to the new risk policy currently in development by the Council. Both community climate vulnerability [62] and habitat climate vulnerability [63] have also been assessed in the Northeast U.S. Climate vulnerability for 108 marine mammal stocks [64] and 58 highly migratory fish stocks [65] have been assessed for the entire Atlantic Coast.

The Council is developing a risk policy that will use some indicators from the SOE, the fish CVA, and possibly ESPs. The policy evaluates risk due to stock status and assessment uncertainty, climate and ecosystem drivers, and economic and community considerations (Fig. (fig:NEriskpolicy)). Indicators are being selected for each category will be scored according to criteria established for the category, then scores across categories are to be weighted by the Council to achieve an overall risk score for each stock given the set of indicators. The risk score would then be used to adjust the buffer between OFL and ABC using the established control rule for the stock in question (NEFMC harvest control rules vary by FMP). The Council plans to start with its groundfish FMP to refine this indicator based risk approach.

NEFMC Risk Policy indicator scoring example.

Figure 4.3: NEFMC Risk Policy indicator scoring example.

The Council has several current projects addressing operational use of ecosystem information in management, designation of ecosystem component species, coordination with other management entities, and evaluation of climate-robust groundfish harvest control rules.

Northeast SOE reports have been produced annually since 2017. Prior to that, longer ESRs were produced in 2002, 2009, 2012, and 2015. The NEFSC dedicates staff time to developing annual ecosystem reports and intermittent ESPs for the full Northeast Region, including both the New England and Mid-Atlantic Council regions. There is currently a plan to update the fish CVA.

The New England Council region includes five states with a long history of commercial fishing, including heavy historical exploitation by foreign fleets. New England fisheries are dominated by commercial fisheries, including highly economically valuable Atlantic scallop fishery, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission-managed lobster fishery.

4.2.5 MAFMC

The Mid-Atlantic Council manages under 7 FMPs; 4 multispecies (Summer flounder scup and black sea bass; Mackerel squid and butterfish, Surfclam and ocean quahog, and Tilefish) and 3 single species (Bluefish, Spiny Dogfish, Monkfish). Dogfish and Monkfish FMPs are joint with the New England Council.

The Council’s Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) Policy Guidance Document functions similarly to an FEP in outlining Council policy in a non-regulatory document. It highlights EAFM policy guidance in several strategic areas including forage fish, habitat, climate change, and ecosystem interactions, with social and economic issues considered through all strategic areas. Based on the EAFM policy strategic areas, the Council has implemented operational management including an unmanaged forage amendment, updated EFH designations based on a regional habitat assessment, and climate change research, scenario planning, and multi-Council coordination.

The policy guidance for addressing ecosystem interactions outlines a decision process beginning with risk assessment for prioritizing key interactions, conceptual modeling for identifying links between risks, information gaps, and questions the Council can address, and management strategy evaluation to quantitatively analyze tradeoffs and management options regarding the high priority ecosystem interactions [66]. The EAFM risk assessment has been used to identify priority fisheries for further analysis with conceptual modeling [67] and management strategy evaluation [68]. The risk assessment was expanded in 2024 to include additional risk elements, indicators, and risk criteria.

The Mid-Atlantic region gets a State of the Ecosystem (SOE) report each year that covers one ecoregion: the Mid-Atlantic Bight [69]. Coastwide Northeast U.S. indicators are also included. The Mid-Atlantic SOE report includes a graphical summary section and three report sections: performance against fishery management objectives, risks to meeting fishery management objectives, and ecosystem highlights from the most recent year (Table 4.11). Fishery management objectives are drawn from U.S. legislation [54], and risks include climate-driven changes and other ocean uses (offshore wind development).

Table 4.11: Indicators presented in the Mid-Atlantic ESR, in order of appearance.

Region

Year

Section

Indicator

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Seafood Production

Total commercial landings

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Seafood Production

Total U.S. seafood landings

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Seafood Production

MAFMC managed U.S. seafood landings

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Seafood Production

Landings by feeding guild

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Seafood Production

Total Community Climate Vulnerability of landings

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Seafood Production

Recreational harvest

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Seafood Production

Recreational shark landings

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Seafood Production

Stock status (F/Fmsy, B/Bmsy)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Seafood Production

Survey biomass by feeding guild

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Commercial Profits

Total revenue

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Commercial Profits

MAFMC managed species revenue

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Commercial Profits

Bennet Indicator (price vs volume)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Commercial Profits

Revenue by feeding guild

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Commercial Profits

Total Community Climate Vulnerability of revenue

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Recreational Opportunities

Angler trips (recreational effort)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Recreational Opportunities

Recreational fleet diversity

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Stability

Commercial fleet count

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Stability

Commercial fleet revenue diversity

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Stability

Commercial species revenue diversity

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Stability

Recreational species catch diversity

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Stability

Total annual primary production

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Stability

Zooplankton diversity (Shannon Index)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Stability

Adult fish diversity (expected number of species)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Stability

Fish community functional traits

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Commercial fishing engagement

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Commercial fishing per capita engagement

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Social vulnerability indices

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Recreational fishing engagement

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Recreational per capita engagement

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Community Social and Climate Vulnerability

Community total climate vulnerability of revenue

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Protected Species

Harbor porpoise bycatch

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Protected Species

Gray seal bycatch

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Protected Species

North Atlantic Right Whale abundance

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Protected Species

North Atlantic Right Whale calf counts

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Protected Species

Gray seal pup births

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Protected Species

Unusual Mortality Events

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Fish distribution shifts (center of gravity)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Marine mammal distribution shifts

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Forage fish distribution shifts

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Small copepod distribution

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Large copepod distribution

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Macrobenthos distribution

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Sea surface temperature

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Gulf Stream position

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Spatially

Cold Pool temperature and extent

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Seasonally

Spawning timing shifts (haddock, yellowtail flounder)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Seasonally

HMS and whale migration timing changes

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Seasonally

Ocean summer length

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Seasonally

Cold Pool persistence

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Managing Seasonally

Phytoplankton bloom timing

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Fish productivity (small per large fish)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Fish productivity (recruitment per SSB)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Fish condition

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Forage fish energy density

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Forage fish biomass index

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Macrobenthos biomass

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Megabenthos biomass

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Primary production

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Zooplankton biomass (large copepods)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Zooplankton biomass (small copepods)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Zooplankton biomass (Euphausiids)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Temperature extremes

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Marine heatwaves

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Ocean acidification (aragonite saturation)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Climate Risks - Setting Catch Limits

Predator populations (sharks, seals)

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

Development timeline and lease areas

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

MAFMC fishery revenue from lease areas

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

MAFMC fishery landings from lease areas

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

Port-level revenue from lease areas

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

Community social vulnerability in wind areas

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

Right whale habitat overlap

Mid-Atlantic

2025

Offshore Wind Risks

Survey area overlap

Mid-Atlantic

2025

2024 Highlights

Labrador Slope Water influx

Mid-Atlantic

2025

2024 Highlights

Gulf Stream position anomaly

Mid-Atlantic

2025

2024 Highlights

Species migration delays

Mid-Atlantic

2025

2024 Highlights

Species redistribution

Mid-Atlantic

2025

2024 Highlights

Chesapeake Bay conditions

Mid-Atlantic

2025

2024 Highlights

Upwelling events New Jersey coast

Mid-Atlantic

2025

2024 Highlights

Coccolithophore bloom south of Long Island

Mid-Atlantic

2025

2024 Highlights

Whale aggregations Hudson Canyon

Mid-Atlantic

2025

2024 Highlights

Ocean acidification extremes Mid-Atlantic

Mid-Atlantic

2025

2024 Highlights

Scallop recruitment variability

Ecosystem socio-economic profiles have been produced for 5 stocks during research track assessments: black sea bass [70], bluefish [71], golden tilefish [72], longfin inshore squid (in progress as of October 2025), and shortfin squid [73]. All Northeast US ESPs to date are listed here: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/ecosystems/ecosystem-and-socioeconomic-profile-development-and-reports

The Council develops annual Fishery Performance Reports using its FMP Advisory Panels that include market, social, economic, and ecosystem influences on fishery productivity from the perspectives of fishery participants. These reports accompany operational stock assessments and fishery data updates through the Council process from the SSC decisions on ABC through committees and Council decisions on ACLs.

To date, ecosystem indicators have been integrated into the operational black sea bass assessment (winter bottom temperature, northern area influences expected recruitment) and into research track models for black sea bass and bluefish (forage fish index influences recreational index catchability). Decisions were based on ESPs.

A climate vulnerability analysis for 82 Northeast U.S. fish and invertebrate species has been published [61], and is considered within the SSC’s ABC deliberation process as part of ecosystem factors contributing to uncertainty in the OFL. Both community climate vulnerability [62] and habitat climate vulnerability [63] have also been assessed in the Northeast U.S. Climate vulnerability for 108 marine mammal stocks [64] and 58 highly migratory fish stocks [65] have been assessed for the entire Atlantic Coast.

A habitat-species climate vulnerability crosswalk summarizing species vulnerability and life history stages dependent on climate vulnerable habitat is also being considered during SSC deliberations, but is not yet formally part of the OFL CV protocol.

The Council has policy statements related to both fishing impacts and non-fishing impact, extending into Ecosystem Based Management (EBM). A recent Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) review was conducted jointly with the New England Council for all Northeast U.S. managed stocks. This comprehensive review included new information on predator-prey relationships for managed species and resulted in an online dashboard summarizing the diet data for each managed species based on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s long term food habits monitoring program.

The Council uses indicators from the SOE, the fish and community CVAs, multiple ESPs, and from maps of other ocean activities in an annual ecosystem-level risk assessment (Fig. 4.4) [74]. This risk assessment is part of the Council’s Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) as laid out in their 2019 policy document.

MAFMC 2025 Indicator-based EAFM Risk Assessment

Figure 4.4: MAFMC 2025 Indicator-based EAFM Risk Assessment

Northeast SOE reports have been produced annually since 2017. Prior to that, longer ESRs were produced in 2002, 2009, 2012, and 2015. The NEFSC dedicates staff time to developing annual ecosystem reports and intermittent ESPsfor the full Northeast Region, including both the New England and Mid-Atlantic Council regions. There is currently a plan to update the fish CVA.

Mid-Atlantic managed fisheries are approximately evenly split between commercial and recreational. A large proportion of commercial landings in the Mid-Atlantic region are Atlantic menhaden, which is managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

4.2.6 CFMC

The Caribbean Council manages under three Island-Based FMPs for for Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas/St. John. The FMPs identify objectives and measures for all of the major fisheries, habitat, and ecosystem issues in each region. Up until 2022, the Caribbean Council managed under region-wide FMPs for spiny lobster, queen conch, reef fish, and corals (with a prohibition on coral take). The Island-Based FMPs were initiated in 2012 to address management issues unique to each island and to lay the groundwork for place-based EBFM; these Island-Based FMPs have been used for management since October 2022. The Island Based FMPs all refer to EBFM as the overarching management principle, and include goals and objectives related both to fishery stock management and sustainable ecosystem services.

An FEP is under development by the Council’s EBFM Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) using ecosystem conceptual models developed for each island by District Advisory Panels and diverse stakeholder groups [75] as a starting point to identify “where we are now” in the FEP loop [7]. The conceptual models identify the most important ecological and social components, relationships, and drivers of each island fishery ecosystem, as informed by expert knowledge from fishers, managers, and scientists serving on the SSC (Fig. 4.5).

Ecosystem relationships common across stakeolder conceptual models; reprinted from Seara et al 2024

Figure 4.5: Ecosystem relationships common across stakeolder conceptual models; reprinted from Seara et al 2024

The Caribbean region has the newest ESR [76], the first produced for this region. The Caribbean ESR is organized according to the goals and objectives identified in each Island Based FMP, and uses indicators inspired by the conceptual models developed for each island. The first section of the report evaluates progress towards FMP objectives in the categories of food production, socioeconomic health, equity, engagement/participation, bycatch reduction, governance, and ecosystem protection. The second section evaluates risks to meeting those objectives (Table 4.12).

Table 4.12: Indicators presented in the Caribbean ESR, in order of appearance.

Region

Year

Section

Indicator

Caribbean

2025

Food production

Abundance of economically important species

Caribbean

2025

Food production

Pelagic:demersal ratio of landings

Caribbean

2025

Food production

Maximum length in the landings

Caribbean

2025

Food production

Commercial landings

Caribbean

2025

Socioeconomic health

Commercial revenues

Caribbean

2025

Socioeconomic health

Commercial fishing trips

Caribbean

2025

Socioeconomic health

Economic activity

Caribbean

2025

Socioeconomic health

Ocean economy

Caribbean

2025

Equality

Commercial revenue distribution

Caribbean

2025

Engagement and participation

Recreational landings

Caribbean

2025

Engagement and participation

Commercial fishing engagement and reliance

Caribbean

2025

Bycatch reduction

Changes in gear type

Caribbean

2025

Governance

Regulatory trends

Caribbean

2025

Governance

Species with informative catch limits

Caribbean

2025

Governance

Education and outreach events

Caribbean

2025

Governance

Enforcement actions

Caribbean

2025

Protection of ecosystems

Coral cover and coral species diversity

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Sea surface temperature

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Coral bleaching stress

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Ocean acidification

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Hurricane activity

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Earthquake activity

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Point source pollution

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Turbidity

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Water quality

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Coastal development

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Primary productivity

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Sargassum inundation

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Market disturbances

Caribbean

2025

Risks to meeting fishery management objectives

Human activity

A project is in progress to develop fishery species CVA for this region (see below). Marine mammal (108 stocks) and highly migratory species (58 stocks) climate vulnerability has been assessed for the entire Atlantic Coast including the Caribbean [64,65].

Current Council projects include “Developing a US Caribbean Hub to Operationalize EBFM in the US Caribbean” to advance indicator-based risk assessment, “Evaluating Priority Species Vulnerability to Changing Environmental Conditions” to initiate a CVA for the region, and “Understanding Impacts of Extreme Events on the Fishery Ecosystem and the Fishers’ Communities in the U.S. Caribbean” to strengthen outreach and education.

The Caribbean Council is one of three regional Councils served by SEFSC, the other two are the Gulf and South Atlantic. While SEFSC dedicates some staff resources to ecosystem reporting, resources to date have been inadequate to produce annual ecosystem reports across all three regions. However, streamlined processes and automation were developed for the current ESR that may permit more frequent updates.

Caribbean fisheries are characterized by high species diversity, critical dependence on vulnerable nearshore and coral reef habitats, many artisanal commercial fishers with a variety of gears landing in many ports, and a recreational fishery with similar characteristics and yield; these conditions make typical single species data collection, assessment, and management approaches difficult [77].

4.2.7 GFMC

The Gulf Council manages under 7 FMPs; 4 multispecies (Coastal migratory pelagics, Reef fish, Shrimp, Coral) and 3 single species (Red drum, Spiny lobster, Stone crab), with and additional FMP for Aquaculture. The original Coral FMP was joint with South Atlantic Council.

A draft Gulf FEP was completed in 2022. This FEP also evaluated cooperative research and citizen science programs. Further FEP development is in progress with the Council’s ecosystem technical team. The FEP extension follows the process outlined in the Pacific and North Pacific of identifying a Fishery Ecosystem Issue (FEI). An example FEI addressing red tide illustrates going through FEI loop [7] identifying objectives, potential indicators, and uses of the indicators to support management. The FEI steps include scoping (the where are we now step) with stakeholders to outline the issue, data available, and potential for Council management, development and execution of a workplan (where are we going), implementation with recommended research, communication, and tradeoff analysis among management options, followed by management recommendation and evaluation of the recommended actions.

For the red tide issue, extensive scoping work is already complete, and considerable data is available for red tides. The red grouper and gag grouper stock assessments include red tide mortality, and red tide uncertainty has been considered by the SSC for these stocks. An new red tide index is currently in development by Council staff. Three index options were presented in May 2025. The red tide index was strongly associated with river discharge, highlighting environmental drivers linked to episodic fish mortality.

Work in progress developing a red tide index under the Gulf Red Tide FEI

Figure 4.6: Work in progress developing a red tide index under the Gulf Red Tide FEI

Two ESRs have been produced for the Gulf, in 2013 and most recently in 2017 [78]. The Gulf ESR reports on climate, physical, habitat, lower and upper trophic level, ecosystem services, and human dimensions indicators, then analyzes combined trends across all of the section indicators to provide an overview of ecosystem conditions (Table 4.13).

Table 4.13: Indicators presented in the Gulf ESR, in order of appearance.

Region

Year

Section

Indicator

Gulf

2017

Climate Drivers

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)

Gulf

2017

Climate Drivers

Sea Surface Temperature (SST)

Gulf

2017

Climate Drivers

Sea Level Rise

Gulf

2017

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Eutrophication (Nutrient Loading)

Gulf

2017

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Hypoxia (Bottom Dissolved Oxygen)

Gulf

2017

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Ocean Acidification (pH)

Gulf

2017

Habitat State

Areal Extent of Estuarine Habitats (Seagrass)

Gulf

2017

Habitat State

Artificial Structures (Reefs and Platforms)

Gulf

2017

Habitat State

Wetland Land Use and Land Cover

Gulf

2017

Lower Trophic States

Net Primary Productivity (NPP)

Gulf

2017

Lower Trophic States

Zooplankton Biomass

Gulf

2017

Lower Trophic States

Forage Fish Abundance (Menhaden)

Gulf

2017

Upper Trophic States

Upper Trophic Level Biodiversity (Species Richness)

Gulf

2017

Upper Trophic States

Mean Trophic Level

Gulf

2017

Upper Trophic States

Overfishing Status

Gulf

2017

Ecosystem Services

Abundance of Economically Important Species

Gulf

2017

Ecosystem Services

Bird Abundance (5 waterbird species)

Gulf

2017

Human Dimensions

Human Population

Gulf

2017

Human Dimensions

Population Density

Gulf

2017

Human Dimensions

Coastal Urban Land Use

Gulf

2017

Human Dimensions

Total Ocean Economy (Employment)

Gulf

2017

Human Dimensions

Total Ocean Economy (GDP)

Gulf

2017

Human Dimensions

Commercial Landings

Gulf

2017

Human Dimensions

Commercial Revenues

Gulf

2017

Human Dimensions

Social Connectedness

Gulf

2017

Human Dimensions

Commercial Fishing Engagement

Gulf

2017

Human Dimensions

Commercial Fishing Reliance

Gulf

2017

Human Dimensions

Recreational Fishing Engagement

Gulf

2017

Human Dimensions

Recreational Fishing Effort

A CVA for 75 Gulf fish and invertebrate species was recently completed [79], Gulf fishing community climate vulnerability has been assessed [80], and 108 marine mammal and 58 highly migratory fish stocks’ climate vulnerability has been assessed for the entire Atlantic Coast, including the Gulf [64,65].

The Gulf Council is one of three regional Councils served by SEFSC, the other two are the Caribbean and South Atlantic. While SEFSC dedicates some staff resources to ecosystem reporting, resources to date have been inadequate to produce annual ecosystem reports across all three regions. However, streamlined processes and automation were developed for the Caribbean ESR that may permit more frequent updates across all regions.

Gulf Council managed fisheries are a mix of recreational and commercial. The Gulf has the highest recreational landings and expenditures of any US region. Gulf menhaden, which is managed by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, contributes the majority of commercial landings in the region.

4.2.8 SAFMC

The South Atlantic Council manages under 8 FMPs: 4 multispecies (Coastal migratory pelagics, Dolphin Wahoo, Shrimp, Snapper Grouper), 2 single species (Golden crab, Spiny lobster) and 2 habitat-oriented FMPs (Coral and live bottom habitat, Sargassum). The original Coral FMP was joint with the Gulf. The FMPs for Coral and Sargassum limit or prohibit commercial exploitation and promote conservation of these living habitats.

Habitat forms the basis of ecosystem based management approaches in the South Atlantic. The South Atlantic FEP II contains both extensive description of the ecosystem (>50% of 400 pages) as well as essential fish habitat (EFH) policy statements that specifically outline indicators and research to support policies. Many of these policies address cross-sectoral considerations, extending into Ecosystem Based Management (EBM). Policies and key ecosystem information include those listed in the FEP and several newer statements from https://safmc.net/fishery-management-plans/habitat/:

  • South Atlantic Food Webs and Connectivity Policy – January 2025
    • Connects EFH and food web considerations, identifies research needs
    • Includes fish food habits data identifying top 10 prey by FMP
    • Includes food web model for the South Atlantic region (Fig. 4.7)
  • Climate Variability and Fisheries – December 2016
    • Connects changing ocean conditions with fish distribution shifts and changing timing, identifies research needs
    • Notes these shifts present challenges for management and new fishery opportunities
    • Requests annual summaries of climate indicators tracking ecological, social and economic trends
    • Requests climate vulnerability analysis and management strategy evaluation focused on climate robustness
  • Marine Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Habitat Policy – June 2014
    • Describes ecosystem services provided by SAV and recent declines in this EFH
    • Outlines monitoring and research, planning, management, and education and enforcement to protect and restore SAV

The following policies identify species with EFH and HAPC potentially impacted by each activity, and identify specific threats, best management practices and research needs: * Beach Dredging and Filling, Beach Renourishment and Large-Scale Coastal Engineering – September 2023 * Energy Exploration, Development, Transportation and Hydropower Re-Licensing - November 2024
* Alteration of Riverine, Estuarine and Nearshore Flows Policy – June 2014
* Artificial Reef Habitat Policy Threats to EFH – September 2017
* Marine and Estuarine Non-Native and Invasive Species Policy – June 2014
* Interactions Between Essential Fish Habitats And Marine Aquaculture Policy – June 2014

A Threats Addressed by Policies Matrix summarizing a range of ocean activities with the potential to affect EFH is included in the FEP and was updated in the 2023 Habitat Blueprint. The Blueprint updated the membership and clarified the functions of the Council’s Habitat and Ecosystem Based Fishery Management Advisory Panel (HEAP), as well as identifying current information products and criteria for developing additional information products supporting habitat and ecosystem efforts.

The Council develops Fishery Performance Reports from its FMP Advisory Panels in association with updated stock assessments. These reports include information on landings/discard trends, management measure performance, environmental and socioeconomic influences on the fishery, and any other concerns. In 2022, The Council adjusted Fishery Performance Report discussion questions to gather information for use in allocation decisions using Allocation Decision Trees. The adjustments specifically address species distribution shifts, fishing practices related to catch and release, and social or cultural importance.

The Council has recently revised its ABC control rule for several FMPs to incorporate risks arising from biological, human, and environmental aspects of risk. These are used together to form a Stock Risk Rating that is combined with information on stock status to determine an appropriate probability of overfishing or P*. Fishery Performance Report information is considered alongside species natural mortality rate and age at maturity as well as information on ecosystem importance, climate change, and other environmental variables within the stock risk rating in the Council’s updated 2023 ABC Control Rule for the Dolphin-Wahoo, Golden Crab, and Snapper-Grouper FMPs.

SAFMC food web model highlighting managed species and their trophic links

Figure 4.7: SAFMC food web model highlighting managed species and their trophic links

Considerable work has been completed in the Southeast US region that forms an excellent starting point to evaluate South Atlantic resources relative to those available nationwide. The South Atlantic has an ESR [81] including indicators spanning climate drivers, physical and chemical pressures, habitat states, lower and upper trophic level status, ecosystem services, and human dimensions (Table 4.14).

Table 4.14: Indicators presented in the South Atlantic ESR, in order of appearance.

Region

Year

Section

Indicator

South Atlantic

2021

Climate Drivers

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)

South Atlantic

2021

Climate Drivers

North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)

South Atlantic

2021

Climate Drivers

El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)

South Atlantic

2021

Climate Drivers

North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature Tripole

South Atlantic

2021

Climate Drivers

Atlantic Warm Pool (AWP)

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Sea surface temperature

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Bottom temperature

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Decadal temperature

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Florida Current transport

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Gulf Stream position

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Upwelling

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Coastal salinity

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Stream flow

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Nutrient loading

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Precipitation and drought

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Sea level rise

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Storms and hurricanes

South Atlantic

2021

Physical and Chemical Pressures

Ocean acidification

South Atlantic

2021

Habitat States

Wetlands and forests

South Atlantic

2021

Habitat States

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)

South Atlantic

2021

Habitat States

Oyster reefs

South Atlantic

2021

Habitat States

Coral demographics

South Atlantic

2021

Habitat States

Coral bleaching

South Atlantic

2021

Lower Trophic Level States

Primary productivity

South Atlantic

2021

Lower Trophic Level States

Zooplankton

South Atlantic

2021

Lower Trophic Level States

Ichthyoplankton diversity and abundance

South Atlantic

2021

Lower Trophic Level States

Forage fish abundance

South Atlantic

2021

Upper Trophic Level States

Nearshore demersal fish diversity and abundance

South Atlantic

2021

Upper Trophic Level States

Offshore hard bottom fish diversity and abundance

South Atlantic

2021

Upper Trophic Level States

Coastal shark diversity and abundance

South Atlantic

2021

Upper Trophic Level States

Coral reef fish diversity and abundance

South Atlantic

2021

Upper Trophic Level States

Mean trophic level

South Atlantic

2021

Upper Trophic Level States

Life history parameters

South Atlantic

2021

Ecosystem Services

Biomass of economically important species

South Atlantic

2021

Ecosystem Services

Recruitment of economically important species

South Atlantic

2021

Ecosystem Services

Commercial landings and revenue

South Atlantic

2021

Ecosystem Services

Recreational landings and effort

South Atlantic

2021

Ecosystem Services

Estuarine shrimp, crab, and oyster landings

South Atlantic

2021

Ecosystem Services

Status of federally managed stocks

South Atlantic

2021

Ecosystem Services

Marine bird abundance

South Atlantic

2021

Ecosystem Services

Marine mammal strandings

South Atlantic

2021

Ecosystem Services

Sea turtle nest counts

South Atlantic

2021

Human Dimensions

Human population

South Atlantic

2021

Human Dimensions

Coastal and urban land use

South Atlantic

2021

Human Dimensions

Total ocean economy

South Atlantic

2021

Human Dimensions

Social connectedness

A CVA for 71 fish and invertebrate species [82,83] is complete, as well as analysis for South Atlantic and Gulf fishing communities [80]. Marine mammal (108 stocks) and highly migratory fish (58 stocks) climate vulnerability has also been assessed for the entire Atlantic Coast [64,65]. These documents contain indicators that represent a starting point towards meeting the needs identified in the EFH policy documents above. In addition, the fish CVA might inform the climate portion of the P* process used to set ABC for stocks in the Dolphin-Wahoo, Golden Crab, and Snapper-Grouper FMPs.

In addition to these data sources, the South Atlantic, well-developed processes to integrate stakeholder ecosystem knowledge [84], and the results of a joint workshop that identified data sources for ecosystem indicators throughout the U.S. East Coast [85].

The South Atlantic Council is one of three regional Councils served by SEFSC, the other two are the Caribbean and Gulf. While SEFSC dedicates some staff resources to ecosystem reporting, resources to date have been inadequate to produce annual ecosystem reports across all three regions. However, streamlined processes and automation were developed for the Caribbean ESR that may permit more frequent updates across all regions.

South Atlantic fisheries are roughly evenly split between commercial and recreational.

4.2.9 Examples from other organizations

4.2.9.1 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) coordinates management of fisheries shared by 15 states bordering the Atlantic Ocean. ASMFC manages a total of 27 stocks, some in partnership with the three Atlantic Councils or NOAA, and 14 species/groups under its own Interstate FMPs (ISFMPs): American Eel, American Lobster, Atlantic Croaker, Atlantic Menhaden, Atlantic Striped Bass, Atlantic Sturgeon, Black Drum, Northern Shrimp, Red Drum, Shad and River Herring, Spot, Spotted Sea Trout, Tautog, and Weakfish.

ASMFC manages Atlantic menhaden using Ecological Reference Points (ERPs) that account for menhaden’s role in the ecosystem [86,87]. The reference points are estimated from a multispecies food web model that includes menhaden and its key managed fish predator species [88]. The food web model is calibrated based on current stock assessments for each managed fish species and fit to biomass and catch data used in each stock assessment. Therefore, the model assumptions about the productivity of each species match the information currently used to manage each species. Diet information from many sources is included in the model to estimate predator prey relationships. The ERP is estimated by evaluating a range of joint fishing mortalities of menhaden and its most responsive predator, striped bass, and finding the menhaden fishing mortality that maintains striped bass at its target biomass when striped bass are fished at their target fishing rate (Fig. 4.8). (The model runs exploring these fishing scenarios include all the other predators and prey and their interactions, where other species are assumed to be fished at their current rates.) Once this fishing rate is found using the ecosystem model, it is translated into the menhaden single species assessment to complete short term projections of the menhaden stock including uncertainty in stock parameters.

Projected striped bass stock biomass under combined menhaden and striped bass fishing mortality scenarios.

Figure 4.8: Projected striped bass stock biomass under combined menhaden and striped bass fishing mortality scenarios.

The process leading up to this approach included a history of multispecies modeling for menhaden and a stakeholder workshop to identify ecosystem management objectives [86], the development of multiple models over a range of complexity to evaluate predator prey relationships [89], and close collaboration between the menhaden single species assessment team and the ERP modeling team [88].

ASMFC has in-house stock assessment resources, and has established a dedicated workgroup to continue the ERP process [86]. The ERP modeling takes advantage of existing single species stock assessment review to streamline evaluation of model inputs, which requires coordination among assessments.

4.2.9.2 National Marine Sanctuaries (include?)

Literature review found that there are ESR like products used for assessment and strategic planning in the National Marine Sanctuaries, as well as CVAs for several Sanctuaries. These could be summarized if of interest, although the management objectives are much more different from Councils.

5 Discussion

5.1 Synthesis across Councils

Based on this review, there are three general categories for current use of ecosystem products: FMP/indicator based, FEP/geographically based, and developing.

The NPFMC, PFMC, MAFMC and NEFMC use species based FMPs to structure management decisions, although many species can be within a particular FMP. Annual ecosystem indicator reports are produced and presented to each Council. Three of the four Councils have non-regulatory FEPs that outline ecosystem level goals and objectives and specify processes (action modules, initiatives, etc.) for each Council to turn the ecosystem plan into tangible action on a topic. (NEFMC developed an FEP with similar attributes, but has not approved it and suspended further work.) Ecosystem indicators have been examined and sometimes used at the full ecosystem, ecoregion (subset of area within Council jurisdiction), species, and/or stock levels for decision making regarding annual catch limits. These regions are characterized by high value, data rich stocks with complex quantitative assessments, although data limited stocks and species complexes are also in each region.

The WPFMC and CFMC each use island based FEP/FMPs to structure decisions for species within a defined ecoregion. This management structure was designed because each island region has distinct social, economic, and ecological conditions, and conducting species assessments across all islands was never practical. Ecosystem reporting has been intermittent (WPFMC) or only recently developed (CFMC) in these regions, yet EBFM is prioritized in the management of in both regions and is being co-developed with regional stakeholders. Human community economic, social, and cultural interactions with the ecosystem are central tenets of management. Both regions are characterized by fisheries capturing a lot of species, with many data limited fisheries and species.

The SAFMC and GFMC are developing ecosystem processes. In each Council, species based FMPs structure decisions, although many species can be within an FMP. SAFMC is leading the other Councils in directly linking EFH and ecosystem efforts. SAFMC has a voluminous FEP and a recent ecosystem indicator report, though not annual. GFMC has a newer FEP and is currently developing Fishery Ecosystem Issues similar to the approach taken in NPFMC and PFMC, but using the conceptual framework that CFMC is applying to develop an FMP.

5.1.1 Common Concerns

The ecosystem role of forage fish has been addressed by many Councils. Generally, Councils have taken steps to prevent new fisheries from developing on currently unmanaged resources or developed harvest control rules accounting for supporting ecological services provided by forage fishing. The ASMFC has developed ecological reference points tying forage fish harvest to predator needs. Spatial management (buffer zones around endangered species colonies/rookeries) has also been implemented.

Climate and ecosystem change is a concern across Councils. The East Coast Coordination Group is actively addressing this concern in the complex jurisdictional and management environment of the U.S. East Coast. While efforts to improve ecosystem and climate information are in progress across the Council regions, it is important to note that having a long history of ecosystem reporting and a data-rich stock assessment environment does not necessarily ensure that a management system is robust to ecosystem change. For example, NPFMC experienced rapid changes in key stocks (Gulf of Alaska cod [33], Bering Sea snow crab [34]) that caused major impacts to fisheries. Climate readiness was ranked relatively low by the Climate Change Task Force established under the FEP.

5.1.2 Ways Forward

There is considerable potential to make more use of the regional CVAs available to most Councils, as well as the ESRs, even if they are intermittent. ESRs can establish a baseline and help Councils evaluate risk tolerance by examining a range of historical conditions and identifying both preferred ecosystem trends or states and trends or states to be avoided. Ecosystem indicator trends and status can then be used in risk assessment. Several Councils now use indicator states in stock or ecosystem level risk assessment. At present, only MAFMC is using information from fish and fishing community CVAs in its EAFM risk assessment process, as well as considering fish and habitat CVA during its SSC ABC process. However, there are plans to include CVA results in the currently developing New England Risk Policy. Because CVA results highlight species, habitats, or communities along a range of vulnerability from high to low, these analyses can be excellent starting points for prioritizing how to address the impacts of ecosystem change.

The initiatives underway at many Councils are promising to improve both ecosystem data and its use, both within each Council region and across them. Councils have a long history of learning from each other in designing and implementing ecosystem level planning. For example, the Pacific Council reviewed the Aleutian Islands, South Atlantic, and Western Pacific FEPs prior to developing its FEP. The Mid-Atlantic in turn reviewed the Pacific and other FEPs in developing its EAFM Policy Guidance Document (functionally an FEP). The North Pacific’s Bering Sea FEP includes the “ecosystem initiative” approach to operationalizing aspects of EBFM, patterned on the Pacific FEP, and the developing Gulf Council FEP similarly includes Fishery Ecosystem Issues or FEIs as the basis for addressing specific ecosystem issues or goals. The island-archipelago based FEPs in the Western Pacific that are currently used for operational fishery management preceeded the Caribbean’s development of island-based FMPs, replacing their the species based FMPs and setting the groundwork for geographically based EBFM.

Iterative co-production of ecosystem data products with managers and scientists has been demonstrated to improve understanding and use of ecosystem data in fishery management [35,68]. Most current FEPs are designed to include co-production, including the WPFMC SEEM process, the NPFMC FEP action module on incorporating local and indigenous knowledge, the Caribbean’s approach to island-based EBFM conceptual models, and many more. Established cooperative research [90] and citizen science programs can ideally be integrated with ecosystem approaches as they develop, and can produce both novel and actionable science [73].

5.2 Recommendations for SAFMC (Preliminary)

SAFMC is unique among Councils in explicitly linking EFH and ecosystem efforts, and in proactively bringing citizen science into its process. These advantages can be incorporated into approaches going forward.

SAFMC shares a mix of reef-type or west coast rockfish complex-like data limited species with some high value data rich stocks, so a mix of approaches from other regional Councils may be warranted, rather than adopting a single Council’s approach.

SAFMC has identified many ecosystem indicators and objectives in its EFH policy documents and also has a process to consider environmental information in ABC setting for multiple species; evaluation of indicators currently in the South Atlantic ESR and results of the fish and community CVAs are likely to reveal matched information as a basis for moving forward.

An explicit process for developing specific ecosystem initiatives, as applied through FEPs or similar policy documents in other regions (Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, Pacific, North Pacific) may allow SAFMC to explore practical ecosystem-based management for a particular fishery or issue.

References

1.
Harvey CJ, deReynier YL, Morrison WE, Cudney JL, Dick DM, Ford T, et al. The U.S. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Policy and Road Map: Assessing Progress and Applying Lessons Learned. Fish and Fisheries. 2025;26: 957–974. doi:10.1111/faf.70012
2.
Morrison W(editor), Rankin TL(editor), Oakes SA(editor), Harvey CJ(editor), Lucey S(editor), Keiley E(editor), et al. Investigating and Improving Applications of Ecosystem Status Reports in U.S. Fisheries Management: Report from a 2021 Workshop organized by the National Marine Fisheries Service Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Working Group. U.S. Dept. Of Commerce., NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSOSF-11. 2022 [cited 27 Aug 2025]. Available: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/38946
3.
Bruno Soares M, S. Gagnon A, M. Doherty R. Conceptual elements of climate change vulnerability assessments: A review. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. 2012;4: 6–35. doi:10.1108/17568691211200191
4.
Morrison WE, Nelson MW, Howard JF, Teeters EJ, Griffis RB, Scott JD, et al. Methodology for assessing the vulnerability of marine fish and shellfish species to a changing climate. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-OSF-3. 2015 [cited 28 Aug 2025]. Available: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/5324
5.
Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel. Ecosystem-based fishery management; A report to Congress. Washington D.C.: U.S Department of Commerce, National Oceanic; Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; 1999.
6.
Marshall KN, Levin PS, Essington TE, Koehn LE, Anderson LG, Bundy A, et al. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management for SocialEcological Systems: Renewing the Focus in the United States with Next Generation Fishery Ecosystem Plans. Conservation Letters. 2018;11: e12367. doi:10.1111/conl.12367
7.
Levin PS, Essington TE, Marshall KN, Koehn LE, Anderson LG, Bundy A, et al. Building effective fishery ecosystem plans. Marine Policy. 2018;92: 48–57. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.019
8.
Bachman M, Coakley J, Witherell D, Boelke D, Fitchett M, Froeschke J, et al. Use of conservation areas for fisheries management and ecosystem conservation in the U.S. Exclusive economic zone. Marine Policy. 2025;175: 106633. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106633
9.
Service NMF. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2022. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-248B. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic; Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science; Technology, Economics; Social Analysis Division; 2024. Available: https://media.wbur.org/wp/2025/01/FEUS-2022-SPO248B-compressed.pdf
10.
Link JS, Marshak AR. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management: Progress, Importance, and Impacts in the United States. Oxford University Press; 2021.
11.
Witherell D, Pautzke C, Fluharty D. An ecosystem-based approach for Alaska groundfish fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2000;57: 771–777. doi:10.1006/jmsc.2000.0719
12.
Rovellini A, Punt AE, Dorn MW, Kaplan IC, Bryan MD, Adams G, et al. Evaluating ecosystem caps on fishery yield in the context of climate stress and predation. Ecological Applications. 2025;35: e70036. doi:10.1002/eap.70036
13.
Siddon E. Ecosystem Status Report 2024: Eastern Bering Sea. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West 3rd Ave., Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2024. Available: https://files.npfmc.org/SAFE/2024/EBSecosys.pdf
14.
Ferriss BE. Ecosystem Status Report 2024: Gulf of Alaska. 2024. Available: https://files.npfmc.org/SAFE/2024/GOAecosys.pdf
15.
Ortiz I, Zador S. Ecosystem Status Report 2024: Aleutian Islands. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West Third, Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2024. Available: https://files.npfmc.org/SAFE/2024/AIecosys.pdf
16.
Zador SG, Holsman KK, Aydin KY, Gaichas SK. Ecosystem considerations in Alaska: The value of qualitative assessments. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil. 2016; fsw144. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsw144
17.
Shotwell SK, Blackhart K, Cunningham C, Fedewa E, Hanselman D, Aydin K, et al. Introducing the Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile, a Proving Ground for Next Generation Stock Assessments. Coastal Management. 2023;51: 319–352. doi:10.1080/08920753.2023.2291858
18.
Shotwell K, Dame R. Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile of the Sablefish stock in Alaska - Report Card. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West Third, Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2024.
19.
Shotwell K, Dame R. Ecosystem and socioeconomic profile of the Pacific cod stock in the eastern Bering Sea - Report Card. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West Third, Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2024.
20.
Fedewa E, Shotwell K, Garber-Yonts B, Aydin K, Callahan M, Copeman L, et al. Appendix B. Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile of the Snow Crab stock in the Eastern Bering Sea - Report Card. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West Third, Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2024.
21.
Fedewa E, Shotwell K, Garber-Yonts B, Callahan M, Cunningham C, Daly B, et al. Appendix C. Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile of the Bristol Bay Red King Crab stock - Report Card. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West Third, Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2024.
22.
Fedewa E, Shotwell K, Garber-Yonts B. Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile of the Tanner Crab stock in the Eastern Bering Sea - Generalized Report Card. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West Third, Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2024.
23.
Sullivan JY, Dame R, Shotwell SK, Karp M, Callahan M, Matta B, et al. Proposed Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile of the Atka mackerel stock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West 3rd Ave., Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2025.
24.
Shotwell SK, Dame R, Cunningham C, Garber-Yonts B, Holsman K, Kimmel D, et al. Appendix 1A. Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile of the Walleye Pollock stock in the Gulf of Alaska - Report Card. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West Third, Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2024.
25.
Shotwell K, Dame R. Ecosystem and socioeconomic profile of the Pacific cod stock in the Gulf of Alaska - Report Card. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West Third, Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2024.
26.
Shotwell SK, Bigman J, Dame R. Appendix 7A. Ecosystem and Socioeconomic Profile of the arrowtooth flounder stock in the Gulf of Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West 3rd Ave., Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2025.
27.
Vollenweider J, Szuwalski C, Yasumiishi E, Andrews A, Dimond A, Murphy J, et al. 2024 Alaskan forage report. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West Third, Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2024.
28.
Siwicke KA. Assessment of the Grenadier stock complex in the Gulf of Alaska, Eastern Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West Third, Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2024.
29.
Holsman KK, Ianelli J, Shotwell K, Barbeaux S, Aydin K, Adams G, et al. 2024 Climate-enhanced multispecies stock assessment for walleye pollock, Pacific cod, and arrowtooth flounder in the eastern Bering Sea. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 West Third, Suite 400, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.; 2024.
30.
Abelman A, Abolhassani A, Dalton M, Dame R, Garber-Yonts B, Harley A, et al. STOCK ASSESSMENT AND FISHERY EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE GROUNDFISH FISHERIES OF THE GULF OF ALASKA AND BERING SEA/ALEUTIAN ISLANDS AREA: ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE GROUNDFISH FISHERIES OFF ALASKA, 2023. 2024.
31.
Dorn MW, Zador SG. A risk table to address concerns external to stock assessments when developing fisheries harvest recommendations. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability. 2020;6: 1813634. doi:10.1080/20964129.2020.1813634
32.
Spencer PD, Hollowed AB, Sigler MF, Hermann AJ, Nelson MW. Trait-based climate vulnerability assessments in data-rich systems: An application to eastern Bering Sea fish and invertebrate stocks. Global Change Biology. 2019;25: 3954–3971. doi:10.1111/gcb.14763
33.
Barbeaux SJ, Holsman K, Zador S. Marine Heatwave Stress Test of Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management in the Gulf of Alaska Pacific Cod Fishery. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2020;7. doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.00703
34.
Szuwalski CS, Aydin K, Fedewa EJ, Garber-Yonts B, Litzow MA. The collapse of eastern Bering Sea snow crab. Science. 2023 [cited 31 Oct 2025]. doi:10.1126/science.adf6035
35.
Tommasi D, deReynier Y, Townsend H, Harvey CJ, Satterthwaite WH, Marshall KN, et al. A Case Study in Connecting Fisheries Management Challenges With Models and Analysis to Support Ecosystem-Based Management in the California Current Ecosystem. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2021;8. doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.624161
36.
Leising A(editor), Hunsicker M(editor), Tolimieri N(editor), Williams G(editor), Phillips A(editor), Dewitt L(editor), et al. 2024-2025 California Current Ecosystem Report. 2025. doi:10.25923/9t48-pb48
37.
Tolimieri N, Haltuch MA, Lee Q, Jacox MG, Bograd SJ. Oceanographic drivers of sablefish recruitment in the California Current. Fisheries Oceanography. 2018;27: 458–474. doi:10.1111/fog.12266
38.
Haltuch MA, Tolimieri N, Lee Q, Jacox MG. Oceanographic drivers of petrale sole recruitment in the California Current Ecosystem. Fisheries Oceanography. 2020;29: 122–136. doi:10.1111/fog.12459
39.
McClure MM, Haltuch MA, Willis-Norton E, Huff DD, Hazen EL, Crozier LG, et al. Vulnerability to climate change of managed stocks in the California Current large marine ecosystem. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2023;10. doi:10.3389/fmars.2023.1103767
40.
Crozier LG, McClure MM, Beechie T, Bograd SJ, Boughton DA, Carr M, et al. Climate vulnerability assessment for Pacific salmon and steelhead in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. PLOS ONE. 2019;14: e0217711. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217711
41.
Koehn LE, Nelson LK, Samhouri JF, Norman KC, Jacox MG, Cullen AC, et al. Social-ecological vulnerability of fishing communities to climate change: A U.S. West Coast case study. PLOS ONE. 2022;17: e0272120. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272120
42.
Martell L, Spalding S. Fishery Ecosystem Management in the Western Pacific Region. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813; 2020. Available: https://www.wpcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Monograph-12_Fishery-Ecosystem-Management.pdf
43.
WPRFMC. Annual SAFE Report for the Hawaii Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan 2024. Remington T, Pardee C, DeMello J, Ishizaki A, editors. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council; 2025. Available: https://www.wpcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Hawaii-FEP-SAFE-Report-2024.pdf
44.
Ayers A. Ecosystem & Socioeconomic Profile of uku (Aprion virescens) in the main Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (U.S.); 2022. doi:10.25923/9f2m-4e10
45.
WPRFMC. Annual SAFE Report for the American Samoa Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan 2024. Remington T, Pardee C, DeMello J, Ishizaki A, editors. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council; 2025. Available: https://www.wpcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/American-Samoa-FEP-SAFE-Report-2024.pdf
46.
WPRFMC. Annual SAFE Report for the Mariana Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan 2024. Remington T, Pardee C, DeMello J, Ishizaki A, editors. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council; 2025. Available: https://www.wpcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Marianas-FEP-SAFE-Report-2024.pdf
47.
WPRFMC. Annual SAFE Report for the Pacific Pelagic FisheriesvFishery Ecosystem Plan 2024. Remington T, Pardee C, DeMello J, Ishizaki A, editors. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council; 2025. Available: https://www.wpcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Pelagic-FEP-SAFE-Report-2024-V2.pdf
48.
WPRFMC. Annual SAFE Report for the Pacific Remote Island Areas Fishery Ecosystem Plan 2024. Remington T, Pardee C, DeMello J, Ishizaki A, editors. Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council; 2025. Available: https://www.wpcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/PRIA-FEP-SAFE-Report-2024-V2.pdf
49.
Gove J, Maynard JA, Lecky J, Tracey DP, Allen ME, Asner GP, et al. 2022 Ecosystem Status Report for Hawaiʻi. 2022 [cited 28 Aug 2025]. Available: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/49331
50.
Giddens J, Kobayashi DR, Mukai GNM, Asher J, Birkeland C, Fitchett M, et al. Assessing the vulnerability of marine life to climate change in the Pacific Islands region. PLOS ONE. 2022;17: e0270930. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270930
51.
Deroba JJ, Gaichas SK, Lee M-Y, Feeney RG, Boelke DV, Irwin BJ. The dream and the reality: Meeting decision-making time frames while incorporating ecosystem and economic models into management strategy evaluation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2018 [cited 20 Jul 2018]. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0128
52.
Feeney RG, Boelke DV, Deroba JJ, Gaichas S, Irwin BJ, Lee M. Integrating management strategy evaluation into fisheries management: Advancing best practices for stakeholder inclusion based on an MSE for Northeast US Atlantic herring,. Under pressure: addressing fisheries challenges with management strategy evaluation. 2019;01: 1103–1111. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0125@cjfas-mse.issue01
53.
Caracappa J(editor), Gaichas S(editor), Beet A(editor), Beltz B(editor), DePiper G(editor), Hyde K(editor), et al. State of the Ecosystem 2025: New England. 2025 [cited 28 Aug 2025]. Available: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/70291
54.
DePiper GS, Gaichas SK, Lucey SM, Pinto da Silva P, Anderson MR, Breeze H, et al. Operationalizing integrated ecosystem assessments within a multidisciplinary team: Lessons learned from a worked example. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2017;74: 2076–2086. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsx038
55.
Behan J, Kerr L, Hart A, Hansell A, Paklovitch T, Cadrin S. Ecosystem profile of American plaice. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (U.S.); 2022. doi:10.25923/7kj5-1155
56.
Behan J, Kerr L. Environmental influences on American Plaice stock dynamics. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (U.S.); 2022. doi:10.25923/yvhh-4288
57.
Behan J, Tyrell A, Hart A, Large S, Hansell A, Lankowicz K, et al. Profile of Ecosystem and Climate Influences on Atlantic Cod. 2023. doi:10.25923/c267-zd92
58.
Behan J, Kerr L. Environmental influences on Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) stock dynamics. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (U.S.); 2023. doi:10.25923/y195-qy63
59.
Tyrell A, Large S. Development of ecosystem indicators for Northwest Atlantic Cod. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (U.S.); 2023. doi:10.25923/dvhr-w337
60.
Molina A, Gaichas S, Owen S. Atlantic herring ecosystem and socioeconomic profile. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (U.S.); 2025. Available: https://apps-nefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/saw/sasi.php
61.
Hare JA, Morrison WE, Nelson MW, Stachura MM, Teeters EJ, Griffis RB, et al. A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. PLOS ONE. 2016;11: e0146756. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146756
62.
Colburn LL, Jepson M, Weng C, Seara T, Weiss J, Hare JA. Indicators of climate change and social vulnerability in fishing dependent communities along the Eastern and Gulf Coasts of the United States. Marine Policy. 2016;74: 323–333. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.030
63.
Farr ER, Johnson MR, Nelson MW, Hare JA, Morrison WE, Lettrich MD, et al. An assessment of marine, estuarine, and riverine habitat vulnerability to climate change in the Northeast U.S. PLOS ONE. 2021;16: e0260654. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260654
64.
Lettrich MD, Asaro MJ, Borggaard DL, Dick DM, Griffis RB, Litz JA, et al. Vulnerability to climate change of United States marine mammal stocks in the western North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. PLOS ONE. 2023;18: e0290643. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290643
65.
Loughran TC, Cudney JL, Crear DP, Crawford LM, Curtis BJ, Gutierrez EM, et al. A climate vulnerability assessment for U.S. Highly migratory fishes in the Atlantic Ocean. PLOS Climate. 2025;4: e0000530. doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000530
66.
Gaichas SK, Seagraves RJ, Coakley JM, DePiper GS, Guida VG, Hare JA, et al. A Framework for Incorporating Species, Fleet, Habitat, and Climate Interactions into Fishery Management. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2016;3. doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00105
67.
DePiper G, Gaichas S, Muffley B, Ardini G, Brust J, Coakley J, et al. Learning by doing: Collaborative conceptual modelling as a path forward in ecosystem-based management. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2021;78: 1217–1228. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsab054
68.
Muffley B, Gaichas S, DePiper G, Seagraves R, Lucey S. There Is no I in EAFM Adapting Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management. Coastal Management. 2021;49: 90–106. doi:10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156
69.
Gaichas S(editor), Caracappa J(editor), Beet A(editor), Beltz B(editor), DePiper G(editor), Hyde K(editor), et al. State of the Ecosystem 2025: Mid-Atlantic. 2025 [cited 22 May 2025]. Available: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/70290
70.
Tabandera R, Tyrell A, McMahan M, Perez P, Hankowsky K, Large S. Black sea bass ecosystem considerations and indicator development. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (U.S.); 2024. doi:10.25923/ez9g-af05
71.
Tyrell A, Celestino M, Cisneros K, Drew K, Gaichas S, Gartland J, et al. Bluefish ecosystem and socioeconomic profile. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (U.S.); 2022. doi:10.25923/s3xc-ta06
72.
Salois S, Owen S, Molina A, Jones A, Hyde K. Golden Tilefish ecosystem and socioeconomic profile. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (U.S.); 2024. doi:10.25923/8g2c-0447
73.
Salois SL, Hyde KJW, Silver AM, Gangopadhyay A, Gawarkiewicz G, Mercer A, et al. Oceanographic indicators for Northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrocus) in the Northwest Atlantic. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (U.S.); 2022. doi:10.25923/f87x-mj55
74.
Gaichas SK, DePiper GS, Seagraves RJ, Muffley BW, Sabo M, Colburn LL, et al. Implementing Ecosystem Approaches to Fishery Management: Risk Assessment in the US Mid-Atlantic. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2018;5. doi:10.3389/fmars.2018.00442
75.
Seara T, Williams SM, Acevedo K, Garcia-Molliner G, Tzadik O, Duval M, et al. Development and analyses of stakeholder driven conceptual models to support the implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management in the U.S. Caribbean. PLOS ONE. 2024;19: e0304101. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304101
76.
Program SIEA. Caribbean Ecosystem Status Report. 2025 [cited 28 Aug 2025]. Available: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/71118
77.
Appeldoorn RS. Transforming reef fisheries management: Application of an ecosystem-based approach in the USA Caribbean. Environmental Conservation. 2008;35: 232–241. doi:10.1017/S0376892908005018
78.
Karnauskas M, Kelble C, Quenee C, Allee RJ, Jepson M, Freitag A, et al. Ecosystem Status Report for the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-706. 2017. Available: https://gulf-council-media.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2025/02/GoMEcosystemStatusReport2017_NMFS-SEFSC-706_FINAL.pdf
79.
Quinlan JA, Nelson M, Savoia C, Skubel R, Scott JD, Ailloud L, et al. Results from the Gulf of Mexico climate vulnerability analysis for fishes and invertebrates. 2023 [cited 28 Aug 2025]. Available: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/55544
80.
Seara T, Jepson M, McPherson M. Community Climate Change Vulnerability in the South Atlantic, Florida Keys and Gulf of Mexico. 2022 [cited 25 Jun 2025]. doi:https://doi.org/10.25923/0wqe-3511
81.
Craig JK, Kellison GT, Binion-Rock SM, Regan SD, Karnauskas M, Lee S-K. Ecosystem Status Report for the U.S. South Atlantic Region. 2021 [cited 25 Jun 2025]. doi:https://doi.org/10.25923/qmgr-pr03
82.
Burton ML, Muñoz RC, Quinlan JA, Nelson MW, Bacheler NM, Runde BJ, et al. A Climate vulnerability assessment for fish and invertebrates in the United States South Atlantic large marine ecosystem. 2023 [cited 25 Jun 2025]. doi:https://doi.org/10.25923/f90h-1z90
83.
Craig JK, Runde BJ, Bacheler NM, Burton ML, Muñoz RC, Quinlan JA, et al. Climate vulnerability assessment of fish and invertebrates in the U.S. South Atlantic large marine ecosystem. PLOS Climate. 2025;4: e0000543. doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000543
84.
McPherson M. Participatory modeling of dolphin and wahoo fisheries in the U.S. South Atlantic: Final report from a workshop series. 2022 [cited 25 Jun 2025]. doi:10.25923/7EG6-9856
85.
Saba V, Kellison T. Summary Report : NMFS Atlantic Coast Science Coordination Workshop August 17-19, 2021. 2023 [cited 25 Jun 2025]. doi:https://doi.org/10.25923/hxt0-3309
86.
Anstead KA, Drew K, Chagaris D, Schueller AM, McNamee JE, Buchheister A, et al. The Path to an Ecosystem Approach for Forage Fish Management: A Case Study of Atlantic Menhaden. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2021;8. doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.607657
87.
Howell D, Schueller AM, Bentley JW, Buchheister A, Chagaris D, Cieri M, et al. Combining Ecosystem and Single-Species Modeling to Provide Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Advice Within Current Management Systems. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2021;7. doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.607831
88.
Chagaris D, Drew K, Schueller A, Cieri M, Brito J, Buchheister A. Ecological Reference Points for Atlantic Menhaden Established Using an Ecosystem Model of Intermediate Complexity. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2020;7. doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.606417
89.
Drew K, Cieri M, Schueller AM, Buchheister A, Chagaris D, Nesslage G, et al. Balancing Model Complexity, Data Requirements, and Management Objectives in Developing Ecological Reference Points for Atlantic Menhaden. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2021;8. doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.608059
90.
Jones AW, Burchard KA, Mercer AM, Hoey JJ, Morin MD, Gianesin GL, et al. Learning From the Study Fleet: Maintenance of a Large-Scale Reference Fleet for Northeast U.S. Fisheries. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2022;9. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.869560